Army Aviation Digest - Apr 1982

APRIL 1982 VOLUME 28 NUMBER4
*
**
Brigadier General Ellis D. Parker
Army Aviation Officer
ODCSOPS, Headquarters,
Department of the Army
Major General Carl H. McNair Jr.
Commander
Brigadier General Richard D. Kenyon
Deputy Commander
2
9
12
14
17
page 2 18
20
22
24
25
26
31
32
35
page 12
38
40
42
44
page 26
U.S. Army Aviation Center
Fort Rucker, Alabama
FQrt .Rucker, Alabama
The Attack Helicopter School and Center Of The Future,
COL David L. Funk
How Long Can We Fight? MAJ Charles R. Poulton II
Threat: Warning: The Threat Branch Has Determined
That Soviet ATGMs Could Be Hazardous To Your
Health, MAJ Frank E. Babiasz
Regarding Rotors
Army Aviation Mission Area Analysis
DES Report To The Field: FY 1981 Class A Mishaps
PEARL'S
U.S. Army Aviation Training Symposium/Policy Com-
mittee Meeting, MAJ Kirk M. Knight and Mr. Robert L.
Ledbetter
ACTAAT: HITMORE vs. GACP
Christmas Captions
16th ATC Battalion In The Field, Mr. Richard P. Fulton
TowerTalk: Aviation Weather, Mr. Ronald B. Jackson
Reporting Final
Views From Readers
Heliborne Electronic Warfare System, COL Robert S.
Fairweather
Confidence Vs. Competence, Mr. Wilburn A. James
Deepwoods, MAJ Michael T. McCourt
ATC Action Line: The Third Ingredient, Mr. Ken Arnold
Cover: An AH-64 used to train aviators in terrain flight
techniques and tactics at Ft. Tusi, " The Attack Heli-
copter School and Center of the Future. " The story
begins on page 2
page 40
page 42
Honorable John O. Marsh Jr
Secretary of the Army
Richard K. Tierney
Editor
The miSSion of the U.S. Army Aviati on Dl fleat(USPS 41 >350) IS to provide
Information of an operatIOnal . functional nature concern Ing safety and aircraft
accident prevention, training. maintenance, operations. research and development ,
aViation mediCine and other related data
This publication has been approved by The Adjutant General Headquarters
Department of the Army 14 October 1981. in accordance with Army Reg ul at ion
310-1
Active Army units receive distribution under the PinPOint distri bution system
as outlined In AR 310-1 Complete DA Form 12-5 and send directly to CDR. AG
Publications Center, 2800 Eastern Boulevard. Bal timore . MD 21220 For any
change In distribution requirement s, ini t iate a revised DA Form 12- 5
The DlfI t IS an official Department of the Army perlodlcat pubtlshed monthly
under the supervISion of the Commandi ng General . U S Army AViation Center
Views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army
nor the U S Army AViat ion Center Photos are U S Army unless otherwise
specified use of the masculine pronoun is intended to include both genders
untess ot herwi se stated Material may be reprinted provided credit IS given to the
Dlfleat and to the author unless otherwise indicated.
Articles. photos and Items of Interest on Army AViation are invited Direct
communication IS authorized to: Editor . U.S. Army Aviation Dlfleat. PO Drawer
P. Fort Rucker, AL 36362 Manuscripts returned upon r equest
National Guard and Army Reserve units under pinpoint distribution also should
submit DA Form 12-5 Other National Guard units should submit requests through
t"el r sta te adjutant general
Those not eligible for official distribution or who desire personal copies of the
Dlgeat can order the magazine from the Superintendent of Documents, US
Government Printing Office. Washington. DC 20402 Annual subSCription rates
are $26.00 domestic and $32.50 overseas.
I
t has been my observation during more than
26 years of aviation service that Army Aviation
continues to grow in its contribution to our
Army on the battlefield- not only because of the
dynamics of our mission but because of the initia-
tive and innovation of our people. The word
" inertia" simply doesn't apply, while " high energy"
is quite descriptive of the Army Aviation team.
The need for change in Army Aviation is constantly
recognized and is most often met with the "forward
looking" suggestions that come from all echelons
of our community.
Indicative of such innovative thinking is our
lead article by Colonel David L. Funk which
describes "The Attack Helicopter School and
Center of the Future." What a thinkpiece it is-from
the location, facilities, units and curriculum for
this futuristic training establishment, to the
concluding plea that the resulting benefits would
be significant enough to override our age-old
obstacle and nemesis-COST!
Colonel Funk's article is, however, evidence
of a recurring question: We will fight as we have
trained, thus should we not do our best to train as
we plan to fight? The National Training Center is
doing much for us in this area insofar as our
sister combat arms are concerned, but it has yet
to develop its full maturity with the integration of
Army Aviation and other critical elements of the
tactical formula for victory. Thus, Colonel Funk's
proposal of a new orientation on aviation training
lends even more visibility to this issue and can
perhaps be viewed as an answer to the questions
raised in the February Digest by General Hamilton
H. Howze (Retired) and Lieutenant Colonel (P)
James W. Lloyd about the need for Army aviators
to be trained to fight.
Another concern expressed in this month's
reading is " How Long Can We Fight?" by Major
Charles R. Poulton II. He suggests that an attack
helicopter company's TOE be augmented by an
additional flight platoon for rearming/refueling
purposes. This would "provide the responsiveness
and flexibility needed to get maximum effective-
ness from our attack helicopter assets," an effect-
iveness that cannot be realized on tomorrow's
battlefields from the present resupply arrange-
ments, Major Poulton states. While the final
solution may not lie simply in adding more "people
and things," it does surface the fact that a fix may
be required for more sustained operations. This
was also recognized in the recently completed
Aviation Mission Area Analysis. As our level of
commitment increases, so must our support slice
increase, especially in Class III and Class V. What
are your thoughts on solving this problem? Is
Major Poulton's proposal the answer? Read on
and th i nk about it.
But still further changes for Army Aviation,
APRIL 1982
particularly in the training area, are presented by
Major Kirk M. Knight and Mr. Robert L. Ledbetter
in their account of the work accomplished at the
" 1981 U.S. Army Aviation Training Symposium/
Policy Committee Meeting. " They relate for you
the principal issues which have al ready been
acted upon or that will be resolved in the near
future.
Field expedients are often necessary to optimize
training within the resources available, and Mr.
Richard P. Fulton writes about the " 16th ATC
Battalion in the Field." His description of the
activities of the air traffic controllers and other
personnel of the 16th as they participated in
GOLDEN SABER V, a corps-level training exer-
cise at Ft. Hood, TX, gives a splendid insight into
the critical function performed by our ATC units,
our tactical controllers-and how they get the
job done.
Hopefully, you will take away from this issue
the observation that Army Aviation continues to
experience both change and challenge, a premise
ably supported by several of our authors this
month and certainly attested to by our 40 years
of heritage. But your appreciation of this fact will
be even more pronounced if you are able to
attend the 40th birthday observance of both Army
Aviation and Ft. Ruckerto be held at the Aviation
Center 4 to 6 June 1982. You are all invited to
attend the many ceremonies, events and displays
which will vividly portray the 40 years of progress
of Army Aviation. A schedule of activities appears
on the inside back cover of this issue. But if you
cannot attend, I would hope that Army Aviation
units and personnel worldwide would pause briefly
in the hurried pace of their commitments and
recognize this chronological milestone i n our
history. Forty years and still growing-because
of the tremendous initiative, dedication and
perseverance of those serving today and those
who served before.
Major General Carl H. McNair Jr.
Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center
Fort Rucker, AL
1
Colonel David L. Funk
TRADOC System Manager
Attack Helicopter
Fort Rucker, Al
see page 4 for glossary
u.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST
J ohn Black slides his Apache slightly to the right to unmask the TAOS. His front
seater, Bubba Claypool, acquires numerous targets, picks a T-80, goes to narrow field of
view on the FLIR, lases, fires a HELLFIRE, tracks, destroys the target followed by an
immediate remask by John Black. The entire engagement takes less than 28 seconds in
total darkness in a forbidding, rugged high desert environment.
Black and Claypool receive a recall message on their OMO, recycle off the nearest
FARP with the rest of their platoon, fly 150 nautical miles at high speed, using terrain
flight techniques, to a holding area known only as a stored way-point in their Ooppler/GPS.
Upon arrival, they are ordered to attack another threat force which is in contact with a
friendly ground force. Upon arrival at their attack position, with an assist by their section
leader and his mast mounted sight equipped scout, they break mask to engage. Radar
and laser warnings fill their CRT. An immediate remask followed by a lateral shift of 600
meters and gOing hot with their uMusic" (radar jamming) cured the problem. As they are
completing their last engagement, one of the overwatching scouts reports hostile attack
helicopters closing at their 10 0 'clock. Their section leader engages with an air-to-air
Stinger to cover the disengagement.
Warrant Officer Candidates Black and Claypool are receiving their combat
indoctrination in the world's most realistic attack helicopter team training
environment-Ft. Tusi, NV . ..
. the ATTACK HELICOPTER SCHOOL
and CENTER of the Future
T
HE u.s. ARMY Attack Helicopter
School and Center was established in
December 1986 as a TRADOC instal-
lation at Ft. Tusi, NY, on the former
site of Wendover Air Force Base. This instal-
lation, the first named for a warrant officer
attack helicopter pilot, is also the home of
'* Fort Tusi was named for CW2 Ronald L. Tusi. CW2 Ronald
L. Tusi was one of the most highly decorated aviators in the
Vietnam conflict. His awards included the DSC (for a record 5
tank kills in 1 day at An Lac in April 1 972), Silver Star with 2
OLCs, DFC with 7 OLCs, Bronze Star with 3 OLCs, 71 awards
of the Air Medal and numerous Vietnamese awards. CW2 Tusi
served two tours in Vietnam as a member of a U.S. Navy Seal
APRIL 1982
the 14th Cavalry Brigade (Attack Helicop-
ter) which provides the school troops, air-
craft and logistics support for the School
and Center. The isolated location of Ft. Tusi
may shock new arrivals; but this very isola-
tion is one of its most desirable features.
Live fire ranges and uninhabited day/night
Team and three tours as an Army Cobra pilot. He holds the
U.S. Army record for tank kills by helicopters (all with 2.75
inch FFAR) and was one of the most proficient standardization
instructor pilots in the force. CW2 Tusi died as a result of a
Cobra wire strike accident at night during a CDEC Night Owl
Experiment at Ft. Hunter Liggett, CA, in 1974.
3
NOE courses abound. To the east and southeast, Ft.
Tusi adjoins Dugway Proving Ground and the Hill Air
Force Base Range which provide hundreds of square
miles of flat to rolling desert terrain. Farther to the
east, Ft. Douglas, UT, provides hilly to mountainous
forrested terrain with impact areas suitable for live fire
in an environment not unlike central Europe. To the
west the entire state of Nevada presents itself as one
big NOE training area with numerous government
owned ranges suitable for both live fire and maneuver
of armored vehicles.
Another benefit of this isolated location is the almost
total lack of'distractions which would impact adversely
on training. Aside from some occasional activity on
the nearby Bonneville Salt Flats, the nearest possible
distracting element is the rather staid Salt Lake City,
100 miles due east. However, recreational activities
for the outdoorsman abound; some of the world's
best hunting, fishing, skiing and mountaineering areas
are within easy reach.
Brigadier General Bob Striker became the first
commandant concurrent with the establishment of the
Center. He gathered around him a group of bright
attack helicopter leaders of proven ability. All had
demonstrated leadership in the recent Southwest Asian
war. All instructors and a very high proportIOn ot the
members of the 14th Cavalry are veterans of that
same conflict. The selection of the cavalry brigade as
the school support organization was based on its own
outstanding combat record, particularly its fast moving,
deep penetration night attacks in the Iranian highlands.
The organization of the cavalry brigade has been
modified to fit its school support mission. The 1st
Battalion of the Attack Helicopter Regiment is organ-
ized and equipped as a standard AH-64 Apache unit;
but all personnel are super talented, combat veterans
of demonstrated capability. In addition to providing
demonstration support and test players for attack
helicopter operational/force development tests, the
1st Battalion is a highly capable RDF unit.
The 2d Battalion of the Attack Helicopter Regiment
contains all AH-64/ AHIP instructor pilots and training
aircraft. All studen ts in courses using these aircraft
are also assigned to this battalion.
The 3d Battalion of the Attack Helicopter Regiment
is equipped with AH-1X Cobra and OH-58D Kiowa
aircraft. "A" Company is an active Army organization
which functions as the training unit for the low side of
the high/ low mix. "B" Company is a Utah National
Guard unit which drills on site, while "C" Company is
a USAR unit from Arizona which takes its summer
training at Ft. Tusi.
The 14th Maintenance and Support Battalion provides
aircraft maintenance and logistical support for the
brigade. One company of the battalion is a Nevada
National Guard unit oriented toward maintaining 3d
Battalion Cobras and OH-58Ds.
The brigade organization also includes the normal
pathfinder, aeroengineer and S& T companies which
have both school support and combat readiness
missions. One platoon of each of these companies is a
GLOSSARY
ADA air defense artill ery FAC forward ai r controller OPFOR Opposing Force
AHIP Army Helicopter Improvement FACTS FLI P augmented Cobra TOW Sight PNVS Pilot' s Night Vision System
Program
FARP forward armi ng and refuel i ng poi nt POI program of instruction
ANVIS aviation night vision imagi ng system
FFAR folding f i n aerial rocket PT physical traini ng
ASE aircraft survi vabi lity equi pment
FLi R forward looking infrared
RDF rapid deployment force
CAS close air support
FLOT forward li ne of own troops
REFORGER Return of Forces To Germany
CDEC U. S. Army Combat Developments
FORSCOM U. S. Army Forces Command
RF radio frequency
Experimentati on Command
FTX field training exercise
RRRP REFORGER Reverse REFORGER
CDR commander
Program
GPS global position system
COHORT cohesion operati onal readi ness
S&T supply and transport
and training
HELLFI RE Hel icopter Launched Fi re and
TADS Target Acqui sition Designation
COL colonel
Forget
System
CONUS continental United States
JAAT joint air attack team
TOW tube-launched, opti call y-tracked,
CRT cathode ray tube MMS mast mounted sight
wire-gui ded
DFC Distinguished Flyi ng Cross NBC nuclear, biological and chemical
TRADOC U.S. Army Trai ning and Doctri ne
DMD digital message device NOE nap-of-the-earth
Command
DSC Distingui shed Service Cross
OCONUS outside continental Uni ted States
USAAHS U.S. Army Attack Helicopter School
EW electronic warfare
OLC oak leaf cluster USAR U.S. Army Reserve
4 U. S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST
local Army Reserve organization.
Attached to the brigade for school support only is a
Combined Arms Battalion. This organization is
composed of one tank/ infantry company with one
"blue" platoon and two OPFOR platoons, an ADA
battery (OPFOR), a helicopter company (OPFOR)
and a range instrumentation company.
Ft. Tusi facilities include those normally associated
with its previous role as an Air Force bomber training
base. However, runways, ramps and hangars have
been upgraded and modernized to facilitate attack
team training and provide adequate support for C-S,
C-141 and A-IO aircraft used in RDF and JAAT
operations and training. The primary attack helicopter
range, located just east of the post, has been fully
instrumented and equipped with RF, EW and laser
emitters. This range is the primary force on force
training and evaluation facility.
Desert, mountain and temperate survival training
camps have been established on suitable terrain in
the local area. Prior to conducting any phase of flight
training at Ft. Tusi, all aircrewmembers must success-
fully complete training in each of these camps.
Combat mission simulators for AH-IX, AH-64B and
AHIP are provided. These simulators work through a
central computer which facilitates section level training
by permitting interaction between cockpits. This permits
tactical play prior to going "for record" on the fully
instrumented range. Savings on aircraft fuel, parts
and munitions are significant while training time is
reduced by cutting en route time to zero. The ability
to "play back" each tactical mission is also a great
assist in training the teams and sections since they can
learn from their own mistakes.
The Attack Helicopter Center's athletic facilities
are among the Army's finest. Physical fitness is stressed
constantly in each POI. Night, NOE attack missions
place heavy demands on each crewmember physically.
Therefore, the highest standards of performance are
required, not only during monthly PT tests but during
other physically demanding activities such as survival
training, orienteering, the cavalry stakes and various
FTXs.
All training at Ft. Tusi is heavily influenced by
lessons learned in Southwest Asia. Indeed this very
establishment of the Attack Helicopter Center was
based on the need, identified in combat, to both
expand and standardize the tactical training of the
attack force. Training areas used previously did not
offer sufficient maneuver and live firing areas to provide
for the expansion required to accomplish those tasks
identified as critical to total force effectiveness.
The program of instruction for the Attack/ Scout
Helicopter Basic Course (the single most important
course offered at the USAAHS) is tailored to receive
input from both initial entry volunteer students who
have completed primary, basic and instrument flight
training at Ft. Rucker, AL, and a limited number of
high quality aviator volunteers from both active and
reserve component units. All are prescreened at either
Ft. Rucker or home stations by the USAAHC screening
team. Screening includes a series of both mental and
physical tests which determine the volunteer's aptitUde
as an attack or scout aviator. Motivation and ability
AH-64B prepares to unmask for a direct fire HELLFI RE engagement on one of the live fire ranges at Fort Tusi
APRIL 1982
5
to act in a high stress environment are two of the most
significant discriminators used during the screening
process.
All students attempting this course must successfully
complete a 4 week preflight phase which serves as an
additional screening gate while providing detailed
knowledge of subjects required prior to entry into the
flying phases. This preflight phase is structured to
intentionally place all students under stress for
significant periods. Training days are long (12 hours +)
and a significant percentage of that time is accomplished
during hours of darkness. Physical conditioning and
basic soldier skills are continually stressed. Map read-
ing, orienteering, individual weapons qualification,
armor tactics and OPFOR training make up the bulk of
the syllabus. Field training is emphasized with armor
and OPFOR operations being nearly all of the "hands
on" variety. Students participate in force-on-force
armor operations as tank and ADA crew members
primarily with the OPFOR. During this training they
learn not only basic threat tactics but work against
friendly attack/ scout helicopters flown by students
from the preceding class.
Survival training is also accomplished during phase
one. [Note: I Everyone who flies at Ft. Tusi must
complete survival training prior to leaving the traffic
pattern. This training is accomplished at each of
three survival training sites: the desert site is located
on the Ft. Tusi reservation; the European (temperate
zone) site is at Ft. Douglas, UT (125 miles east of Ft.
Tusi); and the mountain site is in the Watasch
Mountains (30 miles east of Ft. Douglas). Three days
and nights are spent at each site learning appropriate
survival, escape, evasion and rescue techniques. During
survival training the students seldom sleep, while being
placed under long periods of stress requiring real
world decisionmaking. This physically demanding
training takes place during the last 10 days of phase
one and is designed to take advantage of the students'
physical and mental preparation received during the
early weeks of training.
Those who successfully complete phase one then
move on to the 6 weeks of aircraft transition training
in either the AH-64B, AH-IX or AHIP. Both ground
and flight training are oriented toward producing a
6
pilot capable of flying and fighting the aircraft in a
terrain flight environment during daylight or darkness
and during periods of adverse weather.
The first 6 weeks of flight training is basic aircraft
transition. Aircraft time is minimized during this phase
by heavy reliance on combat mission simulators and
part task trainers for PNVS, T ADS, FACTS and MMS.
Aircraft systems and attack team tactics receive
emphasis during ground school training.
The second phase of flight training consists of 4
weeks of day/ night target acquisition, gunnery and
PNVS or ANVIS single ship, on local ranges.
During the next 6 weeks, section and platoon tactics
are stessed on the intrumented range. Day/night
force on force and live fire scenarios are played in an
NBC/ RF/ EW environment. Use of aircraft survivability
equipment and coordination with ground forces is
habitually stressed. Both air-to-ground and air-to-air
tactics are played extensively. For the first time coordi-
nation with Air Force FACs and CAS aircraft is
played during force on force missions. By using the
instrumented ranges, crews can be debriefed in great
detail after each mission, with the tape playback from
the range instrumentation providing a framework
for evaluation.
The final 2-week period consists of a FTX during
which combined arms and JAAT tactics are empha-
sized again on the instrumented range. During this
phase, crews, sections, platoons and companies are
formed that live and fight in the field for the entire
period. Leadership positions are occupied by students
and are rotated daily. Students are responsible for
mission planning/ coordination, briefings, leadership
and debriefs. Missions are flown day and night over
varying terrain. Both force on force and live fire
missions are executed. During this phase stress is high
and sleep is limited; short reaction times will be
common.
One of the most innovative courses offered is the
Tactics and Weapons Instructor Pilot Training Course.
Each active and reserve component attack battalion
and cavalry squadron sends one attack and one
scout pilot to Ft. Tusi to this course annually. The
course is offered once each quarter to facilitate unit
scheduling around major FTXs, range periods, etc.
U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST
The purpose is to provide each unit with a fully
standardized individual who can provide local instruc-
tion in the latest tactics and techniques.
This 4-week course is structured as follows:
One week of orientation with a complete update
on individual aircraft tactics, target acquisition,
and gunnery both day and night (air-to-ground
and air-to-air) on the instrumented range in an
RF/ EW I NBC environment.
Two weeks of section, platoon and company
tactics in a force on force scenario.
One week in the same environment on a combined
arms FTX which incorporates JAAT and all
available threats. During this exercise the students
plan. lead and critique all missions.
One of the most vital courses of the curriculum is
a 1 week precommand orientation for all ground
combined arms battalion and brigade commanders.
Based on recent combat experi ence, this course fills
a deep knowl edge void. Commanders at all levels
must have an appreciation for attack helicopter
capabilities and limitations. They must also develop
a close working relationship with attack aviation to
fully exploit the balanced combined arms team concept
through mutual support during normal field training.
All team members must continually train together if
they expect to win together on the battl efield. Using
a football analogy, it makes little sense to train groups
of tackles, guards, halfbacks, etc., then expect them
to work well as a team during the big game.
Other courses include AHIP, AH-1X, AH-64B
Instructor Pilot, Aeromine Laying, Pathfinder Basic,
Aeroscout Crewman (19D2F), SAR Paramedic (less
medical training) and AHIP, AH-1X, AH-64B Air-
transportability and Self-Deployment.
In addition to the various formal courses of
instruction, both the Center and the 14th Cavalry
participate in the REFORGER Reverse REFORGER
Program (RRRP). Under this program each active
CONUS attack helicopt er battalion rotates to Europe
every 2 years (reserve component battalions rotate
every 3 years). These battalions use the aircraft and
support facilities of a European-based battalion and
spend most of their time in Europe in the field
learning the missions and tactical techniques appropri-
ate to their wartime reinforcing missions. The displaced
European-based battalions rotat e to the Attack Heli-
copter Training Center for live fir e and force on
force training on the instrumented range. This program
coupled with the Tactics and Weapons Instructor
Pilot Course enhances force standardization while
APRIL 1982
providing training in European weather and methods
to the CONUS-based force. The high standards of
training demanded at the Attack Helicopter Center
thus become the standards of the total force. All
CONUS-based active and reserve component battalions
also rotate through the Center for similar training,
but this is scheduled by FORSCOM based on require-
ments of specific units. Those organizations located
at installations where the training environment is
relatively adequate rotate less frequ ently than those
located where live fire and force on force training
cannot be accomplished. Roughly one-third of the
Center's aircraft, facilities and range time are devoted
to rotational training.
Ft. Tusi is also the home station of the Attack
Helicopter Regiment. During the development of
the Army's COHORT plan in the early 1980s an
attack helicopter regiment was established. All attack
helicopter battalions in the Army are numbered
battalions of that regiment.
The "Colonel of the Regiment" (a highly decorated
retired colonel with broad attack helicopter experi-
ence), the "Regimental Command Sergeant Major"
and a small administrative staff are in residence at
Ft. Tusi. They maintain the regimental records and
history, maintain the regimental museum, establish
and maintain regimental traditions and travel widely
to visit the battalions of the regiment. Formal and
informal regimental functions (dining-ins, tattoos,
parades, happy hours, etc.) form the basis for much
of the social life of its members. Officers, warrant
officers and enlisted troopers, with rare exceptions,
will spend their careers within the framework of the
regiment. Rotation between battalions is accomplished
only when requested by the member or as required to
fill OCONUS requirements. Each battalion of the
regiment has a "home" post, with the first , second
and third battalions being stationed at Ft. Tusi as
organic components of the 14th Cavalry. A member
of the regiment can reasonably expect to spend most
of his career at the CONUS post of his choice except
for required schooling and tours with overseas battalions.
Even during overseas tours, however, the member
feels at home because regimental traditions, standards
and operational t echniques are common to all
battalions. In addition, he knows that his dependents
7
will be supported and assisted by the regiment at
home station if he is on an unaccompanied tour.
The regiment takes care of its own.
Another common bond is formed early in the
career of most members of the regiment since all
officers and warrant officers and most enlisted troopers
are trained at Ft. Tusi. Upon graduation from their
initial courses of instruction at Ft. Tusi, members are
inducted into the regiment at a formal tattoo conducted
by the colonel of the regiment. Regimental crests
and distinctive insignia are presented to each member
by the colonel and command sergeant major of the
regiment as he stands in front of the regimental colors
during the torchlight tattoo (very appropriate for an
organization that conducts most of its business at night).
Since there is no distinction in the regiment between
Active and Reserve Components, or National Guard
and Reserve, attack helicopter personnel are con-
sidered as equal partners. Reserve Component
personnel receive the same training and are inducted
simultaneously with the Active Army members upon
graduation. This offers a significant side benefit.
Since the regimental ties are so strong, a very high
percentage of those personnel leaving the service prior
to retirement tend to affiliate with a Reserve Compon-
ent battalion of the regiment and continue to provide
an important service to their country.
Regimental ties, blazer patches, lapel pins, etc.,
available only to members of the regiment through
the regimental museum fund, fonn very visible recogni-
tions links between members of the regiment who
share both common traditions and training.
The esprit of the regiment is based on a common,
very demanding training program, high standards
and the feeling of belonging to an elite group of
skilled professionals.
The bottom line result of the establishment of the
Attack Helicopter School and Center is that the
quality of the attack helicopter force has increased
dramatically. Initial entry crew selection and training
has been upgraded, standardized and expanded to
the point that each graduate is ready to fly and fight
as a team member when he leaves Ft. Tusi. The combina-
tion of the Tactics and Weapons Instructor Pilot
Training Course and the REFORGER Reverse
REFORGER Program has upgraded force effective-
ness and standardization. These training initiatives,
com bined with the esprit and sense of belonging de-
veloped by the establishment of the attack helicopter
regiment, have served to exploit the true potential of
the attack force.
While it may seem that establishment of a separate
Attack Helicopter School and Center violates the
traditional way of doing business within the Army (in
the past, schools and centers have been branch specific
and attack helicopters do not fit that description), it
should be remembered that the potential force contri-
bution of attack helicopters exceeds that of most
branches. Couple this with the increased combat
effectiveness realized by more realistic, comprehensive
training and force standardization and the rationale
for the rather extreme, costly course of action becomes
clear. Benefits far exceed costs. ....,
AH-1X crew maneuvers down one of the many day NOE courses at Fort Tusi
8
HOW
LONG
CAN WE
FIGHT?
Major Charles R. Poulton II
Commander, 0 Company
229th Aviation Battalion (Attack Helicopter)
Fort Rucker, AL
APRIL 1982
ASP
Class III
Class V
OS
FARP
FFAR
FLOT
FM
GTW
mm
MTOE
NOE
OPFOR
POL
TOE
TOW
GLOSSARY
ammunition supply point
POL-petroleum and solid
fuels
ammunition
direct support
forward arming and refuel-
ing point
foldi ng fin aerial rocket
forward line of own troops
fully modernized
gross takeoff weight
mil limeter
Modificaiton Table of Or-
ganization and Equipment
nap-of-the-earth
Opposing Force
petroleum. oils and lubri-
cants
table of organizaiton and
equipment
tube-launched. opt ical ly-
tracked. wire-guided
CURRENT ATTACK heli-
copter TOEs provide for a limited
organic rearm or refuel capability.
Once the basic load of fuel and
ammunition is expended, the attack
helicopter is totally dependent upon
rapid and timely replenishment, if
it is to continue as an effective
weapons system. In the past, Army
Aviation has relied on permanent,
fixed bases to rearm and refuel
aircraft. This system was used almost
exclusively in Vietnam, the location
of the last major use of attack aircraft
on a scale likely to be used in future
conflicts. The logistical support
required to supply aircraft ammuni-
tion and fuel in Vietnam was monu-
mental. Large-scale operations re-
quired stockpiling huge quantities
of Class III and V in secure areas.
These supplies were brought to the
staging areas by elements that were
not organic to the aviation unit. If
these nonorganic elements, for what-
ever reason, failed to arrive with
Class III and V, the mission could
not be accomplished.
We are working under the same
concept today in many cases, but
with a world situation that demands
attack helicopter units be able to
fight day and night in sustained
combat. In order to carry out this
requirement, we must have a flex-
ible and responsive rearm/ refuel
capability. Lack of an organic cap-
ability can neutralize attack heli-
copter companies more quickly and
effectively than any current or
projected OPFOR threat.
Sometimes the situation requires
that attack helicopters engage armor
vehicles well beyond U.S. ground
forces. At other times, the attack
helicopter company/ battalion is put
in reserve and committed at the
point of the major penetration. At-
tack helicopters have a tremendous
capability to put "steel" on armor
vehicles. In the target rich environ-
9
r - -Attack -
I He licopter
\
Proposed Reorganization of Current A Hack Helicopter Units
ment envisioned, being able to
neutralize the targets properly re-
quires a rapid rearm/refuel capability.
Secure, fixed bases to rearm and
refuel will be so far behind the FLOT
that quick turnaround will be im-
possible. The attack aircraft will
have limited time onstation in this
scenario due to large quantities of
fuel used to and from the battle
area. The FARP provides the rapid
turnaround required to keep maxi-
mum pressure on the enemy and
ensure efficient target servicing.
These FARPs must be highly mobile
and be able to move several times
during a 24-hour period if they are
to survive on the modern battle-
field. In practice the F ARP works
extremely well because, in many
instances, an attack unit has one or
two CH-47 Chinooks in DS to pro-
10
vide the necessary fuel and ammuni-
tion. The CH-47s can usually keep
up with the Class III requirements,
if they remain with the unit and in a
flyable status. Unfortunately, we
don't usually play the very important
resupply of Class V. The tonnages
required are astronomical and the
people necessary to handle this large
quantity are not available.
If we fight, all attack, air cavalry
and assault helicopters will be com-
mitted. It is reasonable to assume
each unit will not have dedicated
CH-47s. These aircraft are in short
supply, and the corps commander
has other high priority requirements
for air resupply. If the attack heli-
copter companies fail to keep con-
stant pressure on the enemy, he
will be able to bring such over-
whelming combat power on U.S.
ground forces as to cause numerous
penetrations. Depending on the
terrain, this could allow the enemy
to fan out in multiple directions
making the containment difficult
to impossible. An attack helicopter
unit will fail to keep pressure up for
two reasons: attrition, and lack of
prompt rearm and/ or refuel when
needed. With the heavy demands
made on the supply system during
combat, it is reasonable to expect
many breakdowns to occur; but
none will have such devastating and
far-reaching effects as the inability
to rapidly rearm/refuel our attack
helicopter assets.
A very important aspect of attack
helicopter operations, in using the
AH-l S (Fully Modernized) Cobra,
is usually overlooked, The gross
takeoff weight of an AH-l S (FM) is
10,000 pounds on a cool day. On a
typical warm summer day it will be
limited to around 9,600 to 9,700
pounds GTW. The average AH-IS
(FM) in the attack configuration of
M200Al Pods, 4 TOW launchers
(each launcher can carry 2 missiles),
M 19720 mm gun, 2 pilots, full load
of fuel (about 1,700 pounds) and no
ammunition, weighs around 9,700
pounds! It's quite obvious that we
must trade fuel for ammunition. The
minimum ammunition needed to
attack known armor targets might
consist of 450 rounds of 20mm (302
pounds-absolutely necessary for self-
defense) , 8 TOW missiles (328
pounds) and no 2.75 inch FF ARs
(to save weight). I realize that dif-
ferent units will use other config-
urations, but the ammunition weight
will remain close to what I show
here.
In the warm day situation above,
the aircraft can take off when fuel
has burned down or reduced to 1,070
pounds. In a typical mission profile
of hovering in/ out of ground effect,
en route cruise, NOE, holding at
flight idle and attacking, our fuel
consumption will average 650 pounds
per hour. Based on this rate, we
have about 1 hour and 35 minutes
from takeoff to flameout. This will
vary as conditions change, but my
point is to show that there isn't much
time available from takeoff to target
engagement and return for rearm/
refuel, particularly at NOE speeds.
If the FARP, for whatever reason,
is not where it is supposed to be,
there's very little flying time left to
find it.
The attack helicopter company
must have a responsive rearm/refuel
capability organic to the unit to
achieve maximum success in com-
bat. This capability must have the
same mobility as the attack aircraft
it will support which, by design,
rules out ground transportation as
approved in the Division 86 Air
Cavalry Attack Brigade.
Current wheeled or tracked ve-
hicles cannot move the great dis-
tances and provide the rapid re-
APRIL 1982
sponse needed in F ARP operations
to meet the attack helicopter mis-
sion requirements of the division
and corps commanders. If we rely
on ground transportation to supply
the F ARP, then we limit the mobility
of the attack helicopter unit to that
of the ground vehicles. If an attack
unit is sent from one brigade to
another or one division to another
and is required to fight upon arrival,
can we reasonably expect a wheeled
or tracked F ARP to reposition and
be functional prior to aircraft fuel
exhaustion? Can we expect the
supported brigade to respond in the
time frame required to keep constant
pressure on the enemy? I think
not- at least not often enough to
fully exploit the attack helicopter
to the maximum extent possible.
I propose that an additional flight
platoon be added to the attack heli-
copter company TOE that consists
of eight UH-60 Black Hawk heli-
copters. The platoon would be
commanded by a captain, have 2
lieutenant section leaders and 13
warrant officer aviators. The primary
function of this unit would be to
provide fuel and ammunition on a
sustained basis to the attack unit.
This UH-60 platoon could break
down into two sections of four air-
craft each and provide two highly
mobile FARPs which will allow the
attack aircraft to keep heavy pres-
sure on enemy forces continuously.
This platoon would have the POL
section and the armament section
(currently in the service support
platoon) under its control to run
the FARPs, along with additional
personnel necessary to load ammuni-
tion in the ASP, off load and break
down the ammunition in the F ARP
for rapid reload of the aircraft.
(These people are extremely criti-
cal.) The flexibility/ mobility of this
platoon would allow it to displace
hourly if necessary and be in opera-
tion within 10 minutes after arriving
in a new location.
When the unit is not committed
for an attack mission, this UH-60
platoon could be used by the bat-
talion/ squadron or brigade/ group
commanders as necessary for as-
saults, resupply, etc. However, it
must be made available to return to
the attack unit as it is committed to
action. With the limited flight time
available to our attack aircraft,
having dedicated UH-60 crews that
train with the unit on a daily basis
and having them completely under-
stand how they integrate in the
overall scheme of maneuver, is
imperative. The teamwork and co-
ordination required to ensure suc-
cess can be achieved only through
daily unit training of dedicated
personnel under the control of the
unit commander. Using UH-60s from
assault units would end up being a
hit and miss proposition that would
be almost as unacceptable as our
current philosophy toward F ARP
operations.
The dollar cost of this additional
platoon is high. We may have to
reduce the total number of attack
units to achieve the required trade-
offs. Aircraft and the required sup-
port are expensive. If we are to
expect the attack helicopter units
to provide the lion's share of enemy
armor destruction, then we must
tailor those units with the necessary
assets to enable the mission to suc-
ceed.
The addition of a UH-60 platoon
to the attack company for F ARP
operations would provide the re-
sponsiveness and flexibility needed
to get maximum effectiveness from
our attack helicopter assets. There
is no other viable option that provides
the rapid turnaround time required;
concurrently it allows us [0 mass
our attack aircraft to achieve maxi-
mum combat effectiveness. Would
not 8 attack units capable of sustained
combat for 12 to 15 hours (or until
the crew is exhausted) be better than
10 attack units that may only be
able to fight for 1 or 2 hours because
they can't get rearmed and/ or re-
fueled? Many will say we can't afford
to do this! I say, if we expect to win
the next conflict, can we afford not
to? __ .'
11
Major Frank Babiasz
Threat Branch
Fort Rucker, AL
A NTIT ANK GUIDED missiles (ATGMs) may
be the most underrated threat to helicopters on the
modern battlefield. Everyone is aware of the existence
of these high technology missiles in an effort to make
armor obsolete on the battlefield. However, many
feel, as they are obviously antitank weapons, their
employment against helicopters is highly improbable.
Think again! The Soviets have long recognized the
threat that the U.S. attack and scout helicopters present
to their armor and mechanized forces, and have stated
that all weapons would be employed to counter them;
this includes antitank guided missiles.
Although not optimized as an antihelicopter weapon,
ATGMs have many advantages in this role. First,
unlike radar directed systems, no indication is given
to the pilot that he is being tracked or fired upon.
Even if the ATGM firing is observed, it will be difficult
to determine if the aircraft is the target. Second,
except for obscurants, evasive maneuvers are the
only countermeasure available. Third, ATGMs are
very accurate at extended ranges. And finally, the
sheer number of ATGMs in the Soviet maneuver
units make them a formidable helicopter threat.
Over the years, the Soviets have placed additional
emphasis on ATGMs which has resulted in increased
numbers within Soviet maneuver units. For example,
almost all of the 96 BMPs (Russian infantry combat
vehicles) in a motorized rifle regiment are armed with
12
AT-4
AT-3 SAGGER ATGMs. Additionally, there is an or-
ganic antitank battery consisting of nine BRDMs (Russian
reconnaissance vehicles) with long-range AT-S SPAN-
DREL ATGMs. Coupled with numerous manpack and
heliborne A TG Ms, it is easy to see that these systems
will proliferate the battlefield.
One major disadvantage of the A TG Ms vs helicopters
is its low velocity. For example, the AT-3 SAGGER has
an average velocity of 120 meters per second over its
3,000 meter flight path. This equates to a 27 second
time of flight, at maximum range. Thus, the slow
velocity of the missile greatly enhances aircraft
survivability. Again, this survivability is based purely
on the aircrew's ability to visually acquire the missile.
However, as Soviet ATGM technology improves, we
can expect significant changes in velocity, accuracy
and target tracking.
Aviators must keep in mind that tracking a fast
moving target, laterally (i.e. a helicopter at 100 +
knots) would be almost impossible using present day
ATGMs. However, when at a hover, nap-of-the-earth,
or flying directly towards a target, helicopters could
become lucrative targets.
In conclusion, it is imperative that aviators be familiar
with all threat systems, even those that are not
considered to have a dedicated antiaircraft role. An
ATGM fired at a hovering helicopter could definitely
prove "hazardous to your health."
U.S. ARMY AVIATION D!GEST
AT -1 SNAPPER
The AT-1 SNAPPER was intro-
duced in the early 1960s. The SNAP-
PER is a manually controlled missile
with guidance commands from a
wire link. This missile is considered
obsolete by the Soviets and has been
replaced by the AT-2 SWATTER
and AT-3 SAGGER.
AT-2 SWATTER
The AT -2 SWATTER is a radio
guided missile with a heat warhead
which exists in three versions (AT-
2A, AT-2B, AT-2C). The AT-2A
and AT-2B models have manual
command-to-line-of-sight (MCLOS)
guidance while the AT-2C SWAT-
TER incorporates a semiautomatic
command-to-line-of-sight (SA CLOS)
guidance and is purely a helicopter
launched version. The SW A TIER'S
range (all models) is 3,500 meters
and its estimated armor penetration
is 500 mm of rolled homogeneous
steel.
AT-2A AT-2B
AT3 SAGGER
The AT-3 SAGGER is a wire
guided missile which has a shaped-
charge HEAT (high explosive anti-
tank) warhead and exists in two
versions (AT-3 and AT-3C). The
AT-3 and AT-3C SAGGER are
almost identical except for missile
guidance which the AT-3 versions
have as MCLOS versus the AT-
3C's semiautomatic. The SAGGER's
range is 3,000 meters and can
penetrate armor of up to 400 mm
(estimate). The missile (both versions)
can be launched from a variety of
ground and airborne platforms.
AT4SPIGOT
The AT-4 SPIGOT is a wire
guided, tube launched, semiauto-
matic command-to-line-of-sight mis-
sile with a HEAT warhead, and exists
in only one version. Similar to our
own TOW missile, the AT-4 has an
estimated range of 2,000 meters and
is estimated to penetrate 500 mm
of rolled homogeneous steel. The
SPIGOT is employed in a tripod
AT-2C AT-3 AT-3C
SWATTER A SWATTER B SWATTER C SAGGER SAGGER C
Missile
Length (mm) 1,160 1,160 1,160 864 864
Diameter (mm) 150 150 150 120 120
Weight (kg) 26.5 29 Unknown 11.3 11.3
Average Velocity
m/sec) 150 150 150 120 120
Range(m)
Maximum 2,500 3,500 3,500 3,000 3,000
Minimum 500 500 Unk 500 500
Warhead HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT HEAT
Guidance MClOS MClOS SAC lOS MClOS SAC lOS
. Target Optical Optical Optical Optical Optical
Tracking Missile
Optical Optical IR Optical IR
Command Link RF RF RF Wire Wire
First-Round Hit
Probability ('Yo) 67 67 + 90+ 61 90+
Launch Platforms/ BRDM 4+ BRDM-2 4+ HIPE 4 MANPACK 2 BRDM-2 14
Unit of Fire
HIPE 4 HIPE 4 HINDA/D 4 BRDM-2 14 BMP/BMD 4
(rounds)
HINDA/D 4 HINDA/D 4 BMP/BMD 4 HOPLITE 4
HARE 2 HARE
2 HOPLITE 4 HIPF 6
HOUND 4 HOUND 4 HIPF 6 HINDA/D 4
HINDA/D 4
mounted model and may be employ-
ed as auxiliary armament on the
BMP and BMD.
AT-5 SPANDREL
The AT-5 SPANDREL is a wire
guided semiautomatic command-to-
line-of-sight missile with a HEAT
warhead. Presently, the AT-5 is only
found mounted on the Soviet BRDM-
2 vehicle; however, it is expected
to replace many of the SWATTER
and SAGGER systems. The missile
has a range of 4,000 meters and an
armor penetration capability of 500
to 600 mm (estimated) of rolled
homogeneous steel.
AT-6 SPIRAL
The AT-6 SPIRAL is a tube-
launched, semiautomatic command-
to-line-of-sight missile mounted only
on the Mi-24 Hind-E helicopter.
Little information is known about
the SPIRAL; however, it is estimated
to have a greater velocity and range
than existing Soviet ATGMs.
AT-4 AT-5 AT-6
SPIGOT SPANDREL SPIRAL
<1,200 <1,200 Unknown
<134 <134 Unknown
7 (est) 7 (est) Unknown
150-200 150-200 300
(est) (est) (est)
2,000 (est) 4,000 (est) Unknown
100 (est) 100 (est) 100 (est)
HEAT HEAT HEAT
SAC lOS SAC lOS SAC lOS
Optical Optical Optical
IR IR IR
Wire Wire RF
90+ 90 + 90+
(est) (est) (est)
MANPACK (27) BRDM-2 15 HINDE
BMP/BMD (47) (est)
4
_Regarding
Rotors
~ ~
u.s. ARMY SAFETY CENTER
14
W
HEN YOU START ponder-
ing the reasons behind the
incidence of rotor accidents
among people who have a clear
idea of what can happen when a
blade hits a tree, another blade,
or somebody's head, you almost
always run into the same old sad
song that provides the sound
track for about every other area
of aviation accidents. Accidents
take place when a person trained
to do a thing the right way forgets
his training.
There are at least eight basic
types of rotor accidents, and if
you put your mind to it you
probably wouldn't have too much
trouble uncovering a few more.
Eight will do for a start. They
are-
Rotors striking personnel
Rotors meshing
Rotors picking up ground
items- debris, tarps,
ponchos, and the like
Rotorwash-caused mishaps
Rotors hitting trees
Vehicles with antennas
driving under rotors
Formation rotor strikes
Attempted starts with tied-
down rotors
Everybody in the helicopter
end of Army aviation knows this.
Yet the accidents keep happening
just the same.
Head-on collision
It's a rare day when anyone in
Army aviation is hit by a blade.
Sometimes, yes. Bu t not often.
However, just about everybody in
the Army sooner or later comes
into close contact with
helicopters- but not everybody in
the Army is in aviation.
An infantryman being hauled
into and out of combat training
exercises or being ferried from
point A to point B can' t be
expected to concentrate on the
deadly possibilities of a rotor. He
has his mind on other things.
Any helicopter passenger can
appreciate the fact that a blade
can remove his head if he gets in
APRIL 1982
its way. But does he stop to think
that when a helicopter lands on a
slope, the uphill rotor can sweep
the ground close enough to mow
the grass? Hell-bent to get clear of
the aircraft, can he forget that
helicopters come equipped with
blades fore and aft and that you
don't approach one from the
rear'! There have been instances
of uninstructed soldiers being
knocked for a loop because they
didn't realize that a lazily
revolving power-off blade packs a
lot more wallop than it looks like
it does. These are the things you
don't have to overlook more than
once when you're dealing with
rotors. Encounters with blades
have a nasty way of being once-
in-a-lifetime experiences.
Only a short while back a crew
chief walked into the tail rotor as
the aircraft was being run up for a
voltage regulator check, and
that' s all she wrote. There have
been more instances than
anybody likes to think about of
infantrymen who have been
struck, sometimes fatally, in head-
on collisions with the uphill sides
of blades.
Sometimes a person who is
excited, apprehensive, or concen-
trating on his own particular job
can overlook a warning. But
normally a warning does the trick
and it is the Army aviator' s
responsibility to see that his
passengers are fully warned.
Concern for passengers should be
as much a part of an aviator's
standard procedures as concern
for the aircraft.
In the other area of rotor
accidents, when helicopters get
tangled up with each other or
groves of trees or foreign objects,
or blow each other into the
ground, you can almost always
uncover violations of procedures.
Somebody has forgotten what he
knows, has ignored what he
knows or has sailed cheerfully
ahead in the face of what he
doesn't know. The result is just
about always the same.
Let's look, for instance, at the
business of foreign objects. No
aviator has yet reported hitting a
flying saucer with his rotor, but
just about everything else you can
name has been encountered from
time to time.
The real trouble comes when a
hovering helicopter picks up
assorted debris off the ground in
its rotorwash and throws it into
the blades. The cure, like most
cures, is simple. You don' t have
to be a Sherlock Holmes to reach
the conclusion that if there are
no loose objects lying around for
the rotorwash to pick up, no
damage can be done.
Hurricane force
At cruise speed, a rotor at its
center is traveling at about 360
rpm, give or take a few. The
blade's tips are revolving at just
about the speed of sound.
This means that air- a lot of
it- is being hurled down at what
amounts to hurricane force. The
pocket-sized hurricane a
helicopter kicks up below, in
addition to picking up loose
material and causing helicopter
suicide, can raise sand with
anything else which gets in its
way. You might say in this respect
that helicopters are their own
worst enemies.
A typical example of what this
can bring on was the UH-ID
hovering for takeoff which got
such a severe buffeting from a
descending CH-47 A that it was
nearly thrown to the mat like an
outweighted wrestler. A quick
autorotation by an alert pilot
saved the day in this case. A
similar incident caused severe
damage to another Huey's skids
and underside.
Every sensible helicopter crew
keeps in mind that everywhere
they go they are taking along
their own pocket-sized typhoon
and that, unless they keep a sharp
eye, they can bring on a mess of
trouble for some poor soul who is
trying to deal with the hurricane
15
his own machine is kicking up.
Mishap mixture
The kindest thing to be said
about most of the other
categories of rotor-induced
mishaps is that the people
involved as a rule weren't having
one of their better days. Or, if
you're a stickler for the bald
truth, you would have to admit
that somebody goofed. There are
many kinds of rotor mishaps, and
they all share one common
factor, the human one.
When a person behind the
wheel of a jeep sporting an
antenna longer than a bamboo
fishing pole blithely drives under
a helicopter with its rotor turning,
you can offer long odds that his
mind was not on the job at hand.
The same goes for the unknown
hero who left a pair of needle
nose pliers on a tail boom, right
where they could fall into the
rotor when it started fanning
around. This incident wouldn't
have happened, at that, if the
pilot had made an adequate pre-
flight. And there has been more
than one occasion when engines
have been started with the rotor
blades still tied down.
Simple carelessness'? You can
say it again, and you can also
make a note of the fact that
where helicopters are concerned
it doesn't take much of a blooper
to bring on a major disaster.
Aside from the occasional goof-
off which brings on the crash, too
many helicopter mishaps
involving rotors come from a lack
of intelligent foresight- the
failure to look ahead 'to the
possible consequences of a minor
error.
Take the case of loose objects
in the aircraft itself. Even a paper
cup can cause trouble if it blows
out the door and into the rotor at
the wrong moment. Also, more
than once a door has come loose
and hit the rotor when it became
accidentally unlocked, or
16
somebody failed to install the
safety lock pin. Anything
unsecured in a helicopter is a
rotor hazard.
An OH-58 pilot was flying with
the doors removed. The back seat
cushion blew out of the
helicopter and sheared both tail
rotor blades. The pilot could not
control the aircraft and was killed
in the crash.
Rotors are the most accident-
prone part of any helicopter. If
there's one thing for certain in
this world, it is that when one
loses a blade in flight you can't
bring it home in a power-off glide
the way you might a fixed wing.
Blow a blade anywhere- in the
air or on the ground - and you've
had it. If you're lucky you can
pick up the marbles and go home.
Anyway things turn out, you're
out of commission.
Proper care of rotors is there-
fore not only of prime
importance, but is, sad to say,
easy to overlook. A helicopter
pilot, with rotors above and
behind him and no wings as a
measuring device, can drift into
the danger zone if he lets his
alertness fail him for a split
second.
Rotor accidents can be
eliminated only when aviators are
constantly concerned with the
possibilities and alert to the
dangers. Constantly. It doesn't do
much good to think about sound
rotor procedures at stated
intervals and forget about them
the rest of the time. Sound rotor
procedures have to be a daily
affair. The penalties for lapses are
too great. There aren't any areas
of aviation in which you can
safely ignore sound procedures,
but when it comes to rotors,
constant alertness is absolutely
critical to your health.
Where helicopters are
operating, skies are more
crowded than a subway at the
rush hour. It's easy for the pilot
whose alertness is the tiniest bit
off to stick his rotors where they
don't belong. To protect himself,
he must always be on the lookout
for the other fellow and he has a
right to expect the other fellow to
be on the alert for him. It's a
matter of teamwork on the part of
all hands, the way just about
everything in the Army must
operate if the job is to be done in
topflight, professional style.
Finally, a helicopter pilot
doesn' t have to be told that what
can be only a minor mishap for
fixed wings can turn into
something fatal for helicopters.
Nobody with brains enough to
tie his own shoelaces wants a
rotor-inspired mishap on his
hands for any reason - personnel
strikes, blades meshing, or
anything else.
An ounce of prevention doesn't
cost anything at the corner
drugstore, but the pound of cure
can set you back a king's ransom.
Alertness and foresight, taken
three times daily, are guaranteed
to prevent rotor headaches. Ask
the person who's had one .
ARMY
AVIATION
MISSION
AREA
ANALYSIS
(AAMAA)
Study Branch II
Directorate of Combat Developments
Fort Rucker. AL
THE ARMY AVIATION Mission
Area Analysis (AAMAA) recently
has been completed and published
by the U.S. Army Aviation Center,
Ft. Rucker, AL, Directorate of
Combat Developments. This com-
prehensive study effort examined
the role of Army Aviation as an
integral part of the Army's combined
arms team of the future. As depicted
by the AAMAA logo, the analysis
considered all aspects of Army
Aviation through the use of a front-
to-rear conceptual approach orient-
ed on the future threat.
combat service support missions.
Corrective actions to overcome
these deficiencies were recommend-
ed based on a thorough analysis of
opportunities presented by changes
in doctrine, organization, training
or materiel.
The identification of deficiencies
in Army Aviation's ability to counter
the projected threat was accom-
plished through evaluation of inputs
from other mission area analyses,
input from the field and wargame
simulations conducted at the Avia-
tion Center and the Combined Arms
Combat Developments Activity
(CACDA) at Ft. Leavenworth, KS.
Once the deficiencies were assimi-
lated, an extensive research effort
was undertaken to identify correc-
tive action opportunities. This effort
included participation by subject
matter experts in the area of training
and doctrine, training developments
and combat developments from the
Aviation Center; the materiel de-
velopment community; and avia-
tion systems managers. Nonmateriel
corrective action opportunities were
preferred since they are usually the
quickest and cheapest to implement.
Only when such opportunities were
exhausted were materiel actions
considered. With additional staffing
and review, a set of recommended
corrective actions for each deficien-
cy was produced.
The results of this I-year effort
were examined for appropriateness
and completeness by the Army' s
senior management during the Army
A viation Systems Program Review
(AASPR) in March 1982. This re-
sulted in guidance from the Vice
Chief of Staff of the Army (VCSA)
on major aviation issues and actions
which gives direction to Army avia-
tion developments for the next 3 to
4 years. Aviation users and develop-
ers will follow through by preparing
the Army Aviation Development
Plan for the VCSA's approval, detail-
ing the recommended actions neces-
sary to implement the AASPR gui-
dance and providing those capabi-
lity improvements most critical to
the force as a whole.
Thus, the first steps of a contin-
uing process in the advancement of
aviation as an integral member of
the combined arms team have been
completed with the publication of
the Army's first, in-depth analysis
of its premier arm for deep at-
tack - Army Aviation.
The AAMAA identified Army
Aviation deficiencies across the
broad spectrum of combat, combat
support and combat service support
operations in the performance of
close combat, fire support, air de-
fense, combat support, intelligence
and electronic warfare, command
and control, communications and
MISSION SYSTEMS AVIATION
AREA
.A.
PROGRAM .A. DEVELOPMENT
ANALYSIS
-..
REVIEW
--
PLAN
(DEFICIENCIES) (GUIDANCE) (ACTIONS)
JANUARY 82 MARCH 82 SEPTEMBER 82
APRIL 1982
17
U. S. ARMY
. .
- I -
Directorate of Evaluation/Standardization
5
REPORT TO THE FIELD
AV IATION
STANDARDIZATION
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
ARMY AVIATION logged 1,632,790 flight hours
in fiscal year (FY) 1981 , and recorded 43 Class A
aircraft mishaps and 26 fatalities. The mishap rate
was 2.63 per 100,000 flying hours. Figure 1 displays in
graphic form the mishap rates for FY 1977 to the
present, with FY 1981 showing a reversal of the
downward trend of the two previous years.
The frequency of Class A mishaps and fatalities by
aircraft type is shown in figure 2. UH-l aircraft flew
more than half the hours logged by Army Aviation. It
was involved in about 44 percent of all Class A mishaps
and 54 percent of all fatalities. The UH-l recorded a
Class A mishap rate of 2.32, which was well below the
Armywide rate.
For the third consecutive year, the OV-l was the
only fixed wing aircraft that was involved in a fatal
mishap. During that period, whenever ejections had
been attempted, they were successful.
Figure 3 indicates Class A mishaps by rank and
flight hour experience. It is evident that aviators with
low flight time experience were involved in several
mishaps ; however, it is still the experienced aviator
who remains the main mishap producer.
CONCLUSION:
The 1,632,790 flight hours logged in FY 1981 were
the most flown by Army Aviation since 1974. This
18
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
FIGURE 1: CLASS A Mishap Rate
sizable increase in flight activity was not without its
costs, as indicated by the rising mishap rate.
The Army's instructor pilot (lP) force had a significant
effect on the year's mishap rate. Whereas in FY 1980,
they were involved in about 5 percent of the mishaps
and no fatalities, they were involved in about 30
percent of the mishaps and 35 percent of the fatalities
in FY 1981.
Mishaps involving pilots and instructor pilots
indicated that deviations from standardized procedures
were contributory cause factors. Nonstandard pro-
cedures were apparent in the FY 1981 mishaps which
are shown in figure 4. The table also makes note of
the repetitive nature of the cause factors for the past 3
years.
The eight cause factors represent 50 percent of the
Class A mishaps and 39 percent of the fatalities which
occurred in FY 1979, 1980 and 1981. The recurring
problem areas offer the aviation standardization and
safety communities opportunities for improvement.
Command interest and application of resources by
unit standardization, training, safety and medical
personnel should make a positive impact and a re-
duction of the recurring cause factors.
Other Class A mishap cause factors which have
surfaced in FY 81 (not factors in FY 79 and 80)
indicate deviations from standardized procedures.
a a
CD CD CD
Q Q
en
If:
ftI
en ftlen
E
*=
1:
a. Sa. S-
I!!e
CDene
ftI CDftI CD=
e.2: I:
.c::: u.c:::
!
u-
e
flO .. en
... ftI
00 CD_ 0
E
CD-
&! ii .c:::= a.o= a.E J!
UH-1 817,895 50.09 19 44 14 53.8
OH-58 294,567 18.04 9 .. 21 4 15.3
AH-1 109,751 6.72 7 16.2 2 7.7
CH-47 50,806 3A8 2 5 1
U-21 50,742 3.11 1 2.2
OH-6 37420 2.29 1 2.2 1 3.9
UH-60 33,748 2.07 2 5
OV-1 22,535 1.38 1 2.2 2 7.7
CH-54 6,406 39 1 2.2 2 7.7
OTHER 202920 12.43 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 1,632,790 100 43 100 26 100
FIGURE 2: CLASS A Mishaps and Fatalities by Aircraft
Two simulated single engine mishaps and two
fatalities: One of the single engine mishaps was the
result of the IP overloading the trainee and the training
scenario beyond the capabilities of the IP, the student
and the machine. The impractical nonstandardized
approach to emergency maneuver training proved
fatal to both aviators. The other mishap resulted from
a maneuver attempted outside the operational envelope
of the aircraft and beyond the capabilities of man and
machine.
Two mishaps while developing new rou tines for
exhibition: One mishap was caused by diversion of
attention of both flight crewmembers. The other
maneuver was aerodynamically impractical.
One tachometer generator failure: The tachometer
generator failure was mistaken for an engine failure
by the instructor pilot. The mishap indicated consider-
able lack of familiarity wi th emergency procedures
and a breakdown in flight standardization.
One taxiing into obstructions: There is a saying
in aviation, "There is no excuse for a taxi accident." In
this instance, the crew was relying on nonstandard
procedures while ground taxiing in an area with limited
clearance. This type of mishap can only produce a
negative impression of the PIC's (pilot in command's)
ability and reflects in a similar manner on his supervisor.
There were 11 mishaps as a result of materiel failure
or malfunction. These "other" type mishaps were
responsible for six fatalities and one missing aircraft
and crew. The necessity for close supervision of main-
tenance procedures is indicated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Commanders, operational personnel and trainers ...
... examine their standardization programs and
DES welcomes your inquiries and requests to focus attention
on an area of major importance. Write to us at: Commander,
U.S. Army Aviation Center, ATTN: ATZQ-ES, Ft. Rucker, AL
APRIL 1982
a.
ftI
.c:::
CD
.!!1;j
E ..
2.32
'0 en
a",
CD'" CD
"a. S II.!! 1:

Q
CDftI
3.05
CD
.a=
CD
l!
.-:
.a.c:::
u
ECi e
:;J
Een CD CD
6.37
!!:s
:; :::1-

G
>-
>Q
eE a. e_ a. ftlC ftIftI
3.52
1.97 WI 6 14.0 4 15.4 , 434 27.66
2.67 W2 9 21.0 8 30.8 1991 29.88
5.92 W3 16 37.2 8 30.8 3131 34.06
4.43 W4 1 2.3 0 0.0 3571 42.00
15.61 03 10 23.2 6 23.0 1279 31.80
0 DAC 1 2.3 0 0.0 5847 44.00
2.63 43 100.0 26 100.0 2159 32.2
FIGURE 3: CLASS A Mishaps by Rank and Experience
determine their validity in relation to the previously
discussed eight problem areas and the four areas
unique to FY 1981.
.. require pre-mission and performance planning
for all missions.
.. continue to monitor the training and mission
scheduling of the less experienced aviators to enhance
their professional development.
.. continue to emphasize the conditions necessary
for a standardized autorotation. At 100 feet above
ground level (AGL):
(1) be in a position to make the intended landing
area.
(2) have a normal rate of descent.
(3) have the rotor in the green.
(4) have the proper airspeed.
For an autorotation with turn, lane alignment must be
achieved by 200 feet AGL.
.. exercise appropriate disciplinary measures in
the control of "over-spirited" aviators.
II. All maintenance personnel adhere to "by-the-
book" procedures. rtf 1
FIGURE 4: Repetitive Cause Factors
FY 1981 FY 1979, 1980, 1981
cause mishap fatalities mishap fatalities
1. Wire strike 3 3
10 11
2. Tree strike 1 1 6 1
3. Operation in IMC 1 3 5 8
4. Hotrodding 1 1 5 4
5. Tail rotor stall 3 3 9 3
6. Autorotation 4 0
14 0
7 Dynamic rollover 2 0
6 0
8. Deceleration 1 0
4 0
36362; or call us at AUTO VON 558-3504 or commercial 205-
255-3504. After duty hours call Ft. Rucker Hot Line, AUTOl/ON
558-6487 or 205-255-6487 and leave a message
19
PEARJ.:S
Personal Equipment And Rescue/survival Lowdown
Carol Stein
photo by Reid Rogers
The Art Of Survival
On a cold nigh t in Decem ber 1981, aU. S. Air Force
F-4 Phantom departed its base on a routine training
mission. The aircraft and its crew were both equipped
with the latest survival equipment and the crew was
well versed in the techniques of survival- just in case.
Over the Atlantic Ocean, just east of Cape Fear,
NC, it happened! The aircraft became disabled in
flight and the crew was forced to eject. "The water
was cold, as you would expect during this time of
year," one crewmember reported later, "but my life
raft deployed just like the TM said it should."
Unfortunately, while attempting to enter his raft,
this crewmember lost both his food and his water. He
considered this only a minor inconvenience, since he
still had his waterproof survival radio to talk to the
search and rescue teams, which he knew would shortly
come to rescue him. He did become a bit concerned,
however, when he discovered that the radio didn't
work - it was waterlogged.
Our unlucky crewmember now found himself without
food, without water and without means of communica-
tion. He knew there were plenty of fish available for
20
food, but he also knew from his survival training that
he shouldn't eat any food without having water available
to aid in digestion. This also was of little consequence
to him, however, since he was still convinced that his
rescue was imminent.
After 4 days, the official search and rescue effort
was suspended. The crew was presumed lost.
On the sixth day, our by now very hungry and
thirsty crewmember spotted a coastal fishing boat. By
waving, yelling and falling out of his raft, he was
finally able to attract enough attention to get himself
rescued. Shortly thereafter, the search for the second
crewmember was resumed. He has never been found.
The lesson to be learned from such a survival
experience is this: We should never take for granted
that we will be rescued immediately. Once we are
safely out of our aircraft and down to earth, we
should be prepared to be in a survival situation
indefinitely. We must manage to obtain enough food
and water to keep us alive. And we must devise ways
to communicate with would-be rescuers if our standard
methods of communication are unavailable to us.
These are all part ofthe "Art of Survival." (Ed Daughety,
DARCOM Project Office for ALSE)
The Incredible Shrinking Helmet
Recently, aircrew personnel from Ft. Campbell,
KY, were involved in cold weather exercises in Alaska.
While there, they discovered a rather bizarre phenome-
non. It seems that their SPH-4 flight helmets, when
left out in the extreme cold, shrank to the point where
they couldn't even be donned! Consequently, personnel
actually had to warm their helmets before they could
attempt to use them.
Anyone who has a car or boat made of fiberglass
knows that this material contracts considerably when
exposed to cold and expands when exposed to heat.
Since the shell of the SPH-4 is made of this very same
fiberglass, you have to expect that the same physical
laws would apply to it.
So, remember, just as you would "keep your powder
dry," make sure to "keep your helmet warm." And if
,you are really disturbed by the fact that your helmet
shrinks and expands, don't hesitate to submit a quality
deficiency report (QDR) on a Standard Form 368 to:
Commander, TSARCOM, ATTN: DRSTS-MCFT,
4300 Goodfellow Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63120.
U.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST
ALSE School Update
We have been informed by the U.S. Army Training
and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) that the Army
Aviation Life Support Specialist course 860-67( )
ASI Q2 is now open to personnel in other than 67-
series military occupational specialities (MOSs). In
addition to those in the 67-series (aircraft maintenance),
personnel in MOSs 71P (flight operations coordinator),
91 B (medical specialist), 96 H (aerial sensor specialist)
and 98J (EW / SIGINT noncommunications interceptor)
are now eligible for this 5-week course conducted at
the U.S. Army Transportation School, Ft. Eustis, VA.
As of yet, however, only 67-series personnel can be
awarded the additional skill identifier (ASI) Q2.
We have also been informed that almost all classes
for fiscal year (FY) 1982 are full, including those
quotas for the Air Force school at Chanute AFB, IL.
Quotas for the Ft. Eustis course will be increased to
180 in FY 1983 and to more than 200 in FY 1984.
In addition, the one class (#8, 22 June to 28 July 82)
at Ft. Eustis designated as an officer class is also full.
The status of officer classes for next year is unknown
at this time. Point of contact for further information
is Mr. Dick Allen, ALSE course coordinator, U.S.
Army Transportation School, AUTOVON 927-2113.
Radio Pocket Shortage
The U.S. Army Support Activity, Philadelphia, has
informed us that the pocket, radio, survival vest,
national stock number (NSN) 8415-00-442-3616, is
temporarily unavailable for issue. Stocks of this item
have been exhausted due to increased requisitioning
by Army activities. The effective date of supply for the
pocket, which is used to accommodate the AN/ PACRC-
90 radio, is 1 July 1982. Limited assets may be available
sooner to supply some high priority requisitions.
Pending availability, all requisitions for this item
su bmitted to Defense Personnel Support Center, source
of supply S9T, will be held on backorder. Point of
contact for further information is Ms. G. Lyles, AUTO-
VON 444-2537.
Visor Track Problem
In the March 1981 issue of PEARL, we told you
about the new track, visor, interchangeable, NSN 8415-
01-083-8372, used on the SPH-4 flight helmet. A problem
has arisen concerning the use of that visor track. It
seems that when the lens is in a full down position, and
the pilot tries to move the lens to the full up position,
the lens tends to bind in the track. When additional
force is applied to the lens, it jumps out of the track,
leaving the pilot blank faced and lensless.
Should you experience such a problem, replace the
new interchangeable visor track with the original visor
track assemblies, NSN 8415-00-410-4668 (right hand)
and NSN 8415-00-410-4669 (left hand). If these replace-
ment tracks are not available, continue using NSN
8415-01-083-8372 until the replacement tracks are
furnished. Point of contact for further information is
Mr. H.A. Tetreault, TSAR COM Directorate for Mainte-
nance, AUTOVON 693-3171 or Commercial (314) 263-
3171.
New Direction On Lensatic Compasses
Lost and bewildered when it comes to compasses?
Here's some information for your guidance and protection.
Lensatic compasses manufactured before 1962 contain
radium, a hazardous material. Compasses made after
1962 use tritium, which is less hazardous. The old radium
compasses were recalled in 1969, but some of them are
still in the field. If your unit has any of these old radium
lensatic compasses, DISPOSE OF THEM IMMEDI-
A TEL Y! Refer to Army Regulation 385-11 for
instructions.
It's simple to identify the old compasses. They
will either not be marked with an NSN, or marked
with an NSN other than 6605-00-846-7618 or 6605-
00-151-5337.
If you are still uncertain, use a gamma radiation
survey meter (AN/PDR-27 or equivalent) to measure
the gamma field emitted by the compass. The old
compasses will emit a measurable gamma field; the
new ones will not.
If you need further guidance, write Commander,
ARRCOM, ATTN: DRSAR-SF, Rock Island, IL
61201, or call Mr. Byrom Harris, AUTOVON 793-
3383/ 3483.
Obsolete Seat Belts
All supply personnel should take a second look at
any requisitions you may be submitting for the belt,
aircraft safety, NSN 1680-00-787-4299 or NSN 1680-
01-054-6531. The resource code for both of these
belts has been changed from PA to PZ (obsolete).
Do not requisition either of the NSNs above.
Do requisition NSN 1680-00-447-9504 when replace-
ment belts are required. Point of contact for further
information is Mr. R. Halsted, TSARCOM Director-
ate for Materiel Management, AUTOVON 693-3769
or Commercial (314) 263-3769. ..,."
If you have a question about personal equipment or rescue / survival gear, write PEARL, OARCOM, ATTN. ORCPO-ALSE,
4300 Goodfellow Blvd. , Sf. Louis, MO 63120 or call AUTOVON 693-3307 or Commercial 314-263-3307
APRIL 1982 21
1981 U.S. Army Aviation
TRAINING SYMPOSIUM/Policy Committ
COMBINED ARMS training, doctrine and
coordination was the theme that existed through-
out the 1981 U.S. Army Aviation Training Symposi-
um/Policy Committee Meeting held in November
at the Aviation Center.
The meeting, hosted at Ft. Rucker's lake lodge,
brought together representatives of major Army
commands, Department of the Army agencies
and the combined arms team. The two interfacing
conferences each occupied 212 days of a full
week of discussions and presentations.
Mandated and attended as outlined in AR 95-
1, the Policy Committee meets annually to resolve
aviation standardization issues. This DA level
forum acts to resolve issues submitted by subordi-
nate aviation standardization boards that cannot
be solved or resolved at local or MACOM level.
This year, field units submitted 77 issues concern-
ing many aspects of aviation standardization,
policy and training.
The Training Symposium concept was intro-
duced during the 1980 meetings and improved
and refined for 1981. While last year's symposium
used the Army Aviation Training Study as a basis
GLOSSARY
AR Army Regulation IFE Instrument Fl ight
ARTEP Army Training and
Examiner
Evaluation Program IFR Instrument Flight
ATM Aircrew Training Man-
Rules
ual IP Instructor Pilot
BG Brigadier General MACOM Major Army Command
CG Commanding General
MG Major General
COL Colonel NBC Nuclear. Biological .
CP Copilot
Chemical
DA Department of the
SEMA Special Electronic
Army
Mission Aircraft
DES Directorate of Evalu-
SIP Standardization In-
ation/ Standardization
structor Pi lot
FORSCOM Forces Command
UT Unit Trai ner
VFR Visual Fl ight Rules
22
for issues, this year's representatives acted directly
on those issues to be voted on by the Policy
Committee.
That concept allows discussion input to issues
by non-Policy Committee organizations and indi-
viduals and subject matter experts, as well as by
voting Policy Committee members. This inter-
action, using an organizational approach, has
assured thorough discussions and consideration
of alternatives by the aviation leaders and imple-
mentors who are directly affected by the decisions.
The symposium thus allows expansion from a
pure standardization meeting to a forum which
allows discussion of many different facets of Army
Aviation and assists the Policy Committee by
prediscussing and refining each issue.
TRAINING SYMPOSIUM
The opening events included remarks and
updates to the 150 members by Aviation Center
directorates and several DA agencies. (Aviation
Digest, December 1981, page 17, reported the
pertinent opening remarks of several general
officers and guest speakers, including special
remarks by General Robert M. Shoemaker, CG,
FORSCOM.) Of particular interest was a multi-
agency presentation entitled "Training for the
Integrated Battlefield," which discussed historical,
present and future training for aviation operations
in an NBC environment.
Four work groups, chaired by COls David Allen,
Bruce Gibbons, William Kuykendall and Joseph
Rutkowski, addressed issues grouped by the func-
tional lines of standardization, training, rotary
wing training and fixed wing training. Aviation
Center subject matter experts attended as needed
to provide information and data for those subjects
that were discussed. A series of issue status boards
Major Kirk M. Knight Mr. Robert L. Ledbetter
Meeting
Directorate of Training Developments
Directorate of Evaluation/ Standardization
Fort Rucker , AL
and comment sheets allowed members to submit
written input to other work groups or to visit the
groups.
Echoing the emphasis on combined arms
training, experts of the combined arms and aviation
carrier branches attended the work group ses-
sions. Representatives of the Combined Arms
Center, as well as the Air Defense, Armor, Infantry,
Intelligence and Transportation Schools provided
valuable input.
After 2 days, the symposium groups had com-
pleted their tasks and final discussions, alterna-
tives and recommendations for each issue; and
results were printed for use during the Policy
Committee meeting. COL Frank Estes, Director
of Training Developments, noted that the thorough
and frank discussions by each group contributed
to the operational success and greatly reduced
the research requirements and workload to the
Policy Committee.
POLICY COMMITTEE
BG Ellis D. Parker, committee executive chair-
man, opened the meeting at midweek. In his
remarks he stressed the need for aviation com-
manders to" sell" their assets and capabilities to
combined arms members to fully integrate their
units with the ground maneuver forces and to
train the ground commanders to use aviation in a
doctrinally and technically sound manner. MG
Harold I. Small, CG, United States Army Trans-
portation School, joined the meeting to discuss
maintenance related issues.
Every issue from the field was presented to
the committee by the representative responsible
for its submission. After review and discussion,
each issue was then voted and finalized by the
members. While some recommendations to issues
APRIL 1982
Fort Rucker, AL
will require more study, many issues were decided
immediately. In order to make it possible for field
commanders to implement those without having
to wait for printed changes to the ATM and AR
95-1, a message authorizing such implementation
was sent to all active and reserve component
aviation units (Message, HQDA (DAMQ-RQ) DTG
281528Z December 1981, subject: Army Aviation
Policy Changes). This is the first time the com-
mittee has taken such action, and its timeliness
made the policy changes much more meaningful.
Some highlights of changes listed in the mes-
sage are:
Crediting ATM task iterations flown in a
more demanding mode of flight for iterations
required in a less demanding mode.
Eliminating ATM tasks 4511, 4512 and 4513
as mandatory flight evaluation tasks.
Authorizing MACOMstowaive, by unit, ATM
req u irements.
Revising procedures for evaluation of the
vertical helicopter IFR recovery procedure.
Allowing the logging of copilot time when
performing CP duties from the " jump seat"
if the aviator is receiving training or evalua-
tion from UT, IP/SIP or IFE.
Deleting accelerate/stop distance computa-
tions for Army airplanes as the sole basis
for a go/ no-go decision.
Allowing reserve component aviators to per-
form VFR pilot duties prior to completing
instrument qualification (qualifiers are out-
lined in the message).
Authorizing qualified flight surgeons to fly
aircraft from the CP position of a single
pilot aircraft while accompanied by an IP/SIP
in order to evaluate aeromedical factors.
Refining ATM requirements for aviators
23
required to fly more than one aircraft.
Outlining mandatory ATM tasks for mainte-
nance officers.
Many other issues resulted in recommendations
which will require additional study and considera-
tion and which involve outside agencies. Some
issues and/ or recommendations are:
Simultaneous printing of operator's manual
and checklist changes.
Evaluation of planning for and employment
of Army Aviation assets during ARTEP.
Institutionalized training for SEMA aircrews.
Refining of the concepti doctrine of tactical
instrument flight.
Review of weight and balance requirements
for flight and, if necessary, training of
technicians.
Standardization of emergency locator trans-
mitter procurement for MACOM-optional
installation in aircraft.
Continued study of Individual Ready Re-
c
serve aviator training and guidance.
Continued progress to the goal of institu-
tionalized training for all test pilots.
Defining standards and depth of knowledge
required for pilots, UT, IP and SIP during
oral evaluations.
EmphaSis on integration of Army Aviation
into the combined arms team through mili-
tary education systems, ARTEP, confer-
ences and training.
COL George Newton, DES director and execu-
tive secretary of the Policy Committee, noted
that issues requiring additional action would be
aggressively pursued to ensure action and imple-
mentation.
The work of the attendees, according to BG
Parker, met the challenge of the many difficult
and complex issues. He charged the members
to return to their units and disseminate the fine
detail of the issues and to move ahead with realis-
tic training and combined arms operations.
N
.. ,. -. .
24
Aviation (enter Training Analysis and Assistance Team
HITMORE vs. GACP
ISSUE: Unit commanders and aviators felt that
the Helicopter Installed Television Monitor and
Recorder (HITMORE) system does not provide
sufficient real time feedback to the gunner while
he is engaging a target. The IP monitor is not an
adequate device because the IP's attention is diverted
to flying the aircraft. Every aviator interviewed
preferred the Gunner's Accuracy Control Panel
(GACP).
COMMENT: HITMORE was evaluated at the U.S.
Army Aviation Center, Ft. Rucker, AL, in 1976
and 1977. In 1978, user evaluations were conducted
at Ft. Campbell, KY and in USAREUR (U.S. Army,
Europe). Following the evaluations, a decision was
made not to procure more Gunner's Accuracy
Control Panels (GACP) and to pursue fielding of
the HITMORE system. Serious problems with
GACP include erroneous scoring and the require-
ment to have an infrared source on each training
target. HITMORE can be used any place and any
time, with or without firing actual ammunition.
HITMORE now can provide real time feedback as
well as pre and post launch constraint indications.
(Directorate of Training Developments)
APRIL 1982
From Jeffery L. Stout
Well Santa, I knew we should have filed that flight plan before take-off.
From MAl Joe D. Coyner Jr.
I tried to tell Santa to recompute the weight and balance after he decided to
include batteries with the electronic games.
From SP5 N oelkenya Atkins
What in the ......... .
From SSG Lewis K. Phillips
Guess which red-nosed 3/
4
% ??X& was responsible for figuring weight and balance?
You see what can happen when just one individual doesn' t pull his share of the
load. Think safety!
Okay Rudolph, you were flight lead so you haul the bag out of here.
For my next trick I'll stand on my head and ... (old army joke).
Honest, the BF-TR2E pulled up right in front of me.
From SGT Joseph Kielbasa Jr.
W ire strikes again!
From LTC William H. Schwend
Don' t spoil your day, keep a tight line on the flight line.
From SP4 Michael J. Anthony Jr.
Dancer, I thought you said tree top level was at 4 to 5 feet. No Santa, I said 45 feet.
From Marvin P. Fitzgerald
We told him before we left, he was in violation of AR 95-1 paragraph 2-8 (4).
From CPT William P. Wilson
Well, so much for T AC instruments!
From MAl DUI Carroll
I warned you that flying night NOE without night vision goggles is tricky business.
25
16
th
AIR TRAFFIC
CONTROL BATIALION
IN THE FIELD
An interview conducted for A viation Digest by Richard P. Fulton,
III Corps and Ft. Hood Public Affairs Office
AN UNEXPECTED blanket of
snow, reinforced with icy blasts of
frigid arctic air, was overrun with a
muddy thaw late in the week-long
GOLDEN SABER V, corps-level
training exercise conducted late in
January over 240 square miles of
maneuver area at Ft. Hood, TX.
Even though environmental con-
ditions were harsh, soldiers of the
post's 16th Air Traffic Control
(A TC) Battalion warmed to the tasks
the exercise demanded and provided
required air traffic control and flight-
following services to the many air-
craft being used in the exercise.
Moving out into the cedar brush
north, west and south from the main
cantonment area, convoys of 16th
A TC troopers crawled their vehicles
through ice and snow to prede-
termined locations, set up heavily
camouflaged airfields and flight
support facilities, and were soon in
business managing the airspace over
the huge exercise area.
Even though individual platoons
of the battalion frequently go to
the field in support of division-level
(and below) unit training, GOLDEN
SABER V was the first time the
battalion headquarters had moved
out as well.
The 16th Air Traffic Control
Battalion consists of the battalion
headquarters and two platoons sta-
tioned at Ft. Hood. Both platoons,
however, are assets of one of the
two companies making up the 16th
A TC. One of these companies is
stationed at Ft. Sill, OK, and the
other is at Ft. Lewis, W A.
Each company has 5 air traffic
control platoons, and the 10 platoons
are spread out over the western
part of the United States, including
Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Kansas,
Colorado, Texas and other loca-
tions. The two platoons at Ft. Hood
are in support of activities taking
place at the largest military instal-
lation in the free world. U nits sup-
ported under the flI Corps umbrella
include the 1 st Cavalry Division,
2d Armored Division and the 6th
Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat).
According to Lieutenant Colonel
Carlton Roberson, battalion com-
mander, units manning the numer-
ous field sites set up by 16th ATC
soldiers included 1/68th and 2/68th
A TC Platoons from Ft. Hood, 5/68th
A TC Platoon from Ft. Sill, the 68th
Air Traffic Control Company Head-
quarters and the 16th A TC Bat-
talion Headquarters. In addition to
the soldiers from Ft. Sill, the bat-
talion also brought in soldiers from
Ft. Riley, KS, and Ft. Polk, LA, to
take part in GOLDEN SABER V.
SSG Frank Felix, a Ft. Sill, OK, noncommissioned officer, stands perimeter
guard near a portable radar unit at a north Ft. Hood temporary airfield. Members
of the 16th ATC from numerous posts came to Ft Hood to participate in GOLDEN
SABER V training. SSG Felix is visual proof of a statement attributed to a retired
Army general officer that regardless of assignment, all training must stress that
the primary duty of a soldier is the obligation to fight to protect the nation when
called upon to do so
26 U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST
APRIL 1982
c
E
Aviation Digest: What is the 16th ATC Battalion
doing in the field?
LTC Roberson: The battalion has come out for the
GOLDEN SABER exercise which is happening now
(18 to 22 January 1982). GOLDEN SABER is a III
Corps exercise with the corps headquarters and key
personnel from two divisions participating. It is primarily
a command post exercise; but, we will be controlling
the airspace over the Ft. Hood training area during
the exercise.
Aviation Digest:When you say controUing the airspace,
do you mean everything that flies over Ft. Hood?
LTC Roberson: Essentially that means that we will
provide flight-following to all aircraft in the exercise
area. By flight-following, I mean that we will advise
aircraft of the range hot areas; we will flight-follow
with them or track them from takeoff to landing, and
for safety purposes assist in rescue actions if anyone
should go down. Finally, we will provide them all
types of advisories such as weather in and around Ft.
Hood except for the main cantonment area of the
post. We will control all of the airspace over Ft. Hood
reservation, and all of the training area. We will be
putting in a corps-level airfield for the III Corps
command post. We also will be putting in a division
airfield for the 1st Cavalry Division and a division
airfield for the 2d Armored Division. In addition, we
will have the flight-following facilities which will talk
to the aircraft while they are en route from one
airfield to the other.
Av iation Digest: Is this what you would do in a combat
situation?
LTC Roberson: Yes, this is essentially what we would
do in a combat situation, though it is somewhat modified
because of the training aspects of the exercise. And of
course we are restricted by real-world considerations
here around Ft Hood. We have other traffic besides
exercise traffic of which we have to be aware.
Essentially, what we would do in a combat situation is
the same thing except all of the division and corps
troops would be ou t instead of just the command
posts. We would work in the corps rear areas and the
division rear areas providing airfields and flight-
following services to the aircraft who fly in the division
and the corps rear areas.
Aviation Digest: What kind of interface would you
a.: have with Air Force operations?
"E
LTC Roberson: The only interface that we would
_ .... ... . .. " have with the Air Force would be in terms of airspace
.0 itself. In other words, the Air Force aircraft would
probably be working at higher altitudes. There is
such a thing called the coordinating altitude which
runs in the neighborhood of 300 to 500 feet above the
27
ground. Weare primarily concerned with Army aircraft
and helicopters that are working below that coordi-
nating altitude at NOE (nap-of-the-earth). The Air
Force is concerned with aircraft above this coordinating
altitude. We work with the Air Force to coordinate
any aircraft that would penetrate that altitude. In
other words, Air Force fast-mover aircraft that would
come down low or Army aircraft that would go higher
than the coordinating altitude would mean that we
would need to work that interface.
As far as any airfield operations, no, we would not
get directly involved with the Air Force in that respect.
In fact, our airfields are primarily for Army elements.
Of course, certain Air Force aircraft may land at
Army airfields depending on the operation or situation.
There possibly would be, in a combat zone, many
airfields that were operated by the Air Force. We
U.S. Army helicopters (below)
flying into 16th Air Traffic
Control Battalion-operated
airfields during GOLDEN
SABER V, a III Corps training
exercise held earlier this year,
received expert instruction
from soldier controllers man-
ning flight-following, radar and
control tower facilities. The
soldiers did an expert job of
camouflaging various pieces
of equipment and conducting
themselves in a tactical man-
ner during the exercise
16th ATC Battalion soldiers
(left and center, above), confer
with LTC Carlton Roberson,
their battalion commander, at
a field site high atop Anderson
Mountain on the southwest
portion of the Fl Hood military
reservation. The soldiers heavi-
ly camouflaged their facility,
and also put out concertina wire
tangles as part of their overall
physical security plan
would establish communication and coordinate with
them, but we would not be part of their operation.
A viation Digest: What about the air defense situation?
Are you all somewhat interfaced in that respect in
terms of watching for bogies?
LTC Roberson: We are directly involved with the air
defense personnel in that we have a great deal of
coordination to effect because Army aircraft have to
move around in the battle area. In the division rear
area and, of course, in the corps rear area, we would
advise the Army aircraft concerning the location of
hot areas-what things they should avoid and not
overfly. We would also pass along warnings from the
air defense folks as to any bogie aircraft traffic or
some other air defense threat in being in the Al a
(area of operations).
We have a direct interconnect with the air defense
personnel through an element we call the CAME
which stands for corps airspace management element.
We also have the DAME which, of course, stands for
division airspace management element. In either the
CAME or the DAME we have air traffic control
personnel, air defense personnel as well as aviation or
airspace management personnel or aviator personnel.
These elements work as part of the CAME or DAME
to coordinate all of the airspace with respect to air
traffic control and air defense. It is, as you can see, a
coordinated and integrated effort.
A viation Digest: Is this the first time the 16th A TC
has heen in the field at Ft. Hood?
LTC Roberson: In one respect yes, in another, no.
Our ATC platoons here at Ft. Hood go to the field
quite often in support of the III Corps divisions (lst
Cavalry Division and 2d Armored Division) here.
This is, however, the first time the entire battalion
headquarters has gone to the field in total support of a
III Corps level exercise. It is an experiment, so to
speak, with the weather and the elements and getting
everything coordinated. It has been quite an experience
so far, moving out into the teeth of a heavy snowstorm
and getting set up.
A viation Digest: When did you come out to the field?
LTC Roberson: We came to the field on Thursday,
the 14th of January, and were finally able to get out of
the Ft. Hood cantonment area in spite of the snow. It
was quite an experience. We did deploy our aircraft,
which was no problem, but the convoys had problems
getting up and down the hills on the icy roads. It took
quite some time.
A viation Digest: How many miles are we talking about?
LTC Roberson: In the neighborhood of about 20
miles from main post out to the various field sites. For
example, here at the battalion headquarters, we moved
into the site and began immediately getting the messhall
tent squared away, communications established and
the sleeping tents up. It was supposed to drop to
about 15 degrees F. that night, and we wanted to be
ready for it. We got established the first night before
dark, and moved in and have been working ever
since.
A viation Digest: Yesterday there were significantly
low temperatures in this area. Did you have a reading
out here?
LTC Roberson: We did not have a local onsite reading,
but we estimate it was about 16 to 18 degrees F., and
that was in the afternoon. Later it became even colder
with the windchill factor making it generally pretty
miserable. As you know, this type of cold is not the
kind of thing we are used to in the central Texas area
during the winter.
A viation Digest: When you say you moved the battalion
headquarters out here, does that mean you moved
everything that a regular Army battalion has?
LTC Roberson: We have a headquarters and a head-
quarters detachment, not a complete headquarters
and headquarters company. We have most everything
that the company would have with the exception of a
wrecker and a few other odds and ends. We moved
the entire battalion headquarters out here for this
exercise. We have the motor pool set up, operations,
distribution - we are making our chow runs and so
forth. Weare conducting both exercise business and
real-world business. We have to stay in touch with
Alaska and Hawaii as well as the elements in the field
for GOLDEN SABER V.
A viation Digest: How is air traffic control being imple-
mented in this particular exercise?
LTC Roberson: Basically the airspace at Ft. Hood
has been broken into four distinct areas with one
area, of course, being over Ft. Hood proper or the
main cantonment area. Outside of that, within the
military operational area, the 16th ATC controls all
aircraft and three distinct flight-following zones have
APRIL 1982
been set up. In the northern portion of the Ft. Hood
military reservation 'our 2/ 68th ATC Platoon has
responsibility. In the middle zone the battalion
headquarters and the 5/ 68th controls the aircraft in
that zone. The 1I68th ATC Platoon controls the
aircraft in the southern portion of the post.
Essentially what has been worked out is that any
aircraft departing Robert Gray Army Airfield or Hood
Army Airfield will initially be controlled from airfield
facilities. As they move into the GOLDEN SABER
exercise area, control or advisory will be passed to
16th ATC elements. Letters of agreement have been
established for these procedures and an aviators'
procedures guide has been provided to the aviators.
A viation Digest: Air traffic controllers are not normally
thought of as people who wear helmets and carry
rifles, yet everyone I see, yourself included, is so
equipped. Why is this?
LTC Roberson: We are in an actual training exercise
and we have a lot of things to do. The tendency is to
want to put the weapon down on the ground and take
off the field gear because it is, of course, easier to
work without it. In a real combat situation, however,
the helmet would be necessary and so would the
weapon in case of incoming, or possible perimeter
attack or something of that nature.
I require, as most commanders do, that all personnel
work completely, totally, in their field gear to not
only get used to wearing it but also to be prepared for
any contingency that might arise.
The bottom line is that if we don't train with weapons
and field gear, and if we don't run our generators, and
if we don't put up our tents, then we don't know how
to do those things when or if we have to. We need to
train with what we have and know how to use it.
A viation Digest: I notice some aircraft parked here at
your field battalion headquarters. Why are they here?
LTC Roberson: We have three UH-l Hueys assigned
to the battalion. In addition, we have two OH-58
Kiowas brought from Ft. Sill on loan to us from
another battalion. These aircraft are used primarily
for flight checks on our radar systems and on the
precision approaches installed at each airfield set up.
We also flight check the airspace system. So each
facility, each airfield, will be flight checked by battalion
aircraft flown by an officer who is certified to check
the actual approaches. That is how we can be sure
that they are safe.
In addition to interviewing the 16th ATC Battalion
commander, several of his soldiers were also inter-
viewed. Here are their comments.
A viation Digest: Sergeant, what is your job?
29
Sergeant First Class Terry L. Howard: I am the battalion
motor sergeant.
A viation Digest: What kind of challenges h v ~ you
had on this training problem?
SFC Howard: Most of the problems we have are with
the cold weather. Right now we are kind of low on
fuel as far as the fuel trucks getting way out here to us
and giving us fuel. About our generators, we had one
generator go down back to the rear, and we have had
some problems on the vehicles, getting them started
in the morning because it is so cold. But let me add
this, that we always do get them started. Our M880s
are starting real good bu t the deuce and a halfs and
the jeeps are the ones we have to work with. When
the cold hits the batteries, you can hang it up as far as
trying to get one started, so we pull-start them or
jump them. When we get them started we let them
run awhile in order to get a good charge.
A viation Digest: How long have you been with the
16th?
SFC Howard: Going on 2 years now. Other assignments
have included infantry, mechanized infantry, aviation,
medics and signal.
A viation Digest: And, what is your job, lieutenant?
Lieutenant Howell: Roy Howell, the 16th ATC
Battalion's headquarters detachment commander.
A viation Digest: Where are we, and what is your job?
LT Howell: We are on top ot a hill in the northern
part of Ft. Hood, and I am working with some soldiers
from the 68th ATC Company's Ft. Sill platoon. We're
setting up and running a corps level airfield. These
soldiers convoyed 300 miles by truck and jeep to get
here for this exercise.
A viation Digest: Tell us about the weather.
LT Howell: When we came out here, we had about 4
inches of snow on the ground. Then, within the past 2
or 3 days, the snow melted and created quite a mud
problem for us. The past 2 days it has dried out pretty
well. We are doing pretty good right now, having
scraped a lot of the mud out of the mess tents and
sleeping tents.
A viation Digest: Lieutenant, if this airfield were in a
combat situation, would the corps folks be using it?
L T Howell: Yes, sir. What we have over here is the
radar set that you would see normally at any airfield-
civilian or military. It is ground controlled approach
radar. They have the radar sets inside those vans.
What they can do is find out what aircraft are out
there, who they belong to via the IFF (identification
friend or foe), and then guide those aircraft in, in case
30
1 L T Randy L. Moseng, platoon leader of 5th Platoon, 68th Air
Traffic Control Company, uses the desk inside a flight coordi-
nation center to record locations of 16th ATC Battalion units
scattered around the more than 200 square miles of maneuver
area being used in the GOLDEN SABER V training exercise.
L T Moseng is from Fl Sill, OK The battalion brought in soldiers
from its many western United States military posts to observe
and take part in the exercise
of adverse weather. This airfield is capable of C-130
drops and also is C-130 landable.
A viation Digest: A lot of people are wearing field
gear-in fact everyone we have encountered. Every-
thing is heavily camouflaged too. Why is that?
LT Howell: We are in a simulated tactical situation
and in a tactical situation all equipment and vehicles
must be camouflaged so that they cannot be seen
from the ground or from the air. Our people are
carrying weapons because they are soldiers as well as
controllers. They would have the mission of defending
this airfield as well as operating it.
A viation Digest: Sergeant, what is your job?
Staff Sergeant Armando Leos: I am the administration
NCO in the NCO Section.
A viation Digest: What has it been like for you out
here?
SSG Leos: The first part of our time was spent putting
up tents and getting our vehicles deployed.
A viation Digest: Did the weather create any problems?
SSG Leos: Yesterday was a really super cold day for
central Texas-snow and ice on the ground-we heard
it was minus 2 degrees F. out here, but nobody has
had frostbite or other cold weather injuries.
A viation Digest: What about the sleeping situation?
Did you put blankets in your sleeping bag?
SSG Leos: Yes, right now I am using two sleeping
bags, one inside the other, and I have to say this- it's
still cold in there!
The corps-level exercise proved to be a valuable
learning experience. A TC personnel working in field
gear and confronted with extremely cold weather ( for
the area) nevertheless succeeded in this mission and
demonstrated that they are capable of meeting the
challenges of the future. ~
u.s. ARIVIY AVIATION DIGEST
"Tower Talk" is a quiz containing questions based on
publications applicable to Anny Aviation, The answers are at
the bottom of the page, If you did not do well. perhaps you
should get out the publication and look it over,
1.
AVIATION WEATHER
FM 1-30
Mr. Ron B. Jackson
Directorate of Training Developments
Fort Rucker, AL
If the lowest barometric pressure at sea level is 29.92
inches of mercury, the pressure (in inches of mercury)
at 2,000 feet would be approximately?
A. 27.92 C. 30.92
B. 28.92 D. 31.92
2. Which defines a decrease in temperature with an
increase in height?
A. Inversion C. Relative humidity
B. Lapse rate D. Isothermal layer
3. Cold air replacing warm air at the surface is character-
istic of what type front?
A. Cold C. Stationary
B. Warm - D. Occluded
4. Warm air replacing cold air at the surface is character-
istic of what type of front?
A. Cold C. Stationary
B. Warm D. Occluded
5. Which type of icing is the most serious form of structural
ice?
6.
A. Rime C. Clear
B. Frost D. Carburetor
How often are National Weather Service terminal
forecasts issued?
A. Every hour C. 4 times daily
B. 3 times daily D. Every 12 hours
7. A terminal forecast is valid for how many hours.
A. 4 C. 12
B. 6 D. 24
8. When may the terminal forecast visibility be omitted
from the forecast?
A. Exceeds 8 statute miles C. 2 miles
B. 3 miles or more (VFR) D. 5 miles
9. An area forecast describes which of the following
anticipated conditions?
A Clouds
B. Icing
C. Weather
D. All the above
10. Area forecasts are good for how many hours?
A. 8 hours with an 8 hour outlook
B. 12 hours with a 12 hour outlook
C. 18 hours with a 12 hour outlook
D. Period specified for each report
Q1Qd '11 UO!paS ' 1-91 5d 'J '01
Q1Qd 'II uO!lJas '1-91
5d
'0 '6
qfr91 Q1Qd 5d V '8
1r91 Q1Qd '1-91
5d
'0 'l
fr91 Q1Qd '1-91 5d '8 '9
Q1Qd '1-6 5d 'J 'S
frL QlQd '9- L 5d '8 '17
q1 -L Q1Qd 'c,-L 5d V 'f:
S-c, Q1Qd 5d '8 'z SH3MSNV
APRIL 1982
31
REPORTING FINAL
Late News From Army Aviation Activities
FROM FT. EUSTIS
Warrant Officer Occupational Survey. The
Warrant Officer MOS 160A (Aviation Maintenance
Technician) occupational survey is currently being
fielded by the Army Transportation School. Its
results will be used to design, develop and
implement improved aviation maintenance in-
struction. Transportation School officials believe
information from individuals who are performing
and supervising the maintenance tasks in field
units will enable the school to ensure needed
courses are being offered.
All 160A warrant officers and their supervisors
are to be surveyed. Individuals who have not
received their copy of the form by this time should
contact LTC Dilg, CW2 Moriarty or Mr. Cahill at
AUTOVON 927-2171/3367, or write to Comman-
dant, Army Transportation School, ATTN: ATSP-
TO-POD, Ft. Eustis, VA 23604. Nonduty-hour calls,
with specific reference to the 160A survey, can
be made to AUTOVON 927-3571.
FROM FT. RUCKER
Safety Contributions Recognized. SFC Gerald
L. Johnson, Army Aeromedical Research Lab-
oratory, has been presented the General Spruance
Award by the SAFE (Survival and Flight Equip-
ment) Association, recognizing his outstanding
contribution to safety through education pertaining
to aviation life support equipment. As NCOIC of
the laboratory's Aviation Life Support Equipment
Retrieval Program, he has conducted detailed
inquiries that resulted in the identification of
inadequate equipment which contributed to
injuries.
The award was established and first given in
1969 to General William W. Spruance and has
32
been presented each yearto individuals or groups
for outstanding contributions to safety through
education. After General Spruance survived a
near-fatal crash in a T-33 (jet trainer), he spent
much of his time teaching others how to survive
and extolling the use of protective equipment.
SFC Johnson's is the second Spruance Award
that has been received by Army personnel; the
first resulted from a group effort.
(June Greer, USAARL)
Museum Fund Report. Progress continues to
be made in the drive to raise $2 million for a new
Army Aviation Museum. The present total is
$522,000.
At the recent annual board meeting of the
Army Aviation Museum Foundation, Inc., which
is directing the fund drive, it was reported that
the foundation is now self-sufficient. Its expenses
are covered by interest on investments and profits
from the museum's gift shop, meaning that all
contributions go directly to the building fund.
Other business transacted at the board meeting
included the reelection of two retired general
officers, LTG Robert R. Williams and LTG John J.
Tolson III, as chairman of the board and president
of the foundation, respectively. All foundation
board members serve without pay.
Parallel building committees have been named
by the foundation and by the Army Aviation Center
to assist with the specifications and final plans.
Selection of an architect is expected to be made
in the near future.
Individuals, units, industries, etc., can have a
part in the challenging task of procuring a new
home for Army Aviation's history. Tax-deductible
contributions can be mailed to the Army Aviation
Museum Foundation, Inc., P.O. Box H, Ft. Rucker,
AL 36362.
STAR OVER BERLIN . .. BG Jimmy Stewart, USAFR (Ret.), looks toward Brandenburg
Gate through the window of an Army helicopter while being given an aerial tour of Berlin by the
Berlin Brigade's Army Aviation Section. The actor was in the city as an honoree at the Berlin
Filmfest.
AASPR-82. The Presidential nominee to be
the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
GEN John W. Vessey Jr., chaired the Army
Aviation Systems Program Review (AASPR) which
was conducted at Ft. Rucker, AL, 24 and 25
March 1982.
In addition to GEN Vessey, representatives
from all four armed services attended the AASPR
which will provide guidance on the future of Army
Aviation.
During discussions and displays the attendees
were updated on present and future arms, tactics
and technology dealing with Army Aviation.
At the conclusion, GEN Vessey, as Vice Chief
of Staff of the Army and Chairman of the AASPR,
gave guidance on where he feels emphasis should
be given during the next 4 years of Army Aviation
development.
Within 6 months of the AASPR, a formal devel-
opment plan will be forwarded to the Office of
the Vice Chief of Staff for final approval.
APRIL 1982
The purpose of the AASPR is to gather repre-
sentatives of the senior leadership of the Army,
Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force and show
them where Army Aviation has come from, where
it is now and where it should go in the future.
The AASPR is one of only 10 such program
reviews held by the Army, according to officials.
Attendees of the AASPR were also guests at
the Bogardus S. Cairns Chapter of the Association
of the U.S. Army general membership meeting
on the night of 24 March 1982.
They were also afforded the opportunity to
view flight demonstrations of Sikorsky's Advancing
Blade Concept (ABC) helicopter and Bell Heli-
copter's XV-15 Tilt Rotor System.
The static displays available included the new
advanced attack helicopter, the CH-47D Chinook,
the U H-60 Black Hawk with the External Stores
Support System, and a full-sized model of the
OH-58 Army Helicopter Improvement Program
(AHIP) Aeroscout.
33
REPORTING
FINAL
Late News From Army Aviation Activities
FROM VIRGINIA
Test Pilots Selected. Five aviators have been
selected by a Department of the Army board to
participate in the Army Aviation Engineering Test
Pilot Program.
Those chosen from 60 candidates were Captains
Gary A. Sharon, Frederick W. Stellar and Richard
L. Vincent; CW3 Reginald C. Murrell; and Major
James M. Correai. These officers will attend a
60-day orientation course at the Army Aviation
Engineering Flight Activity, Edwards Air Force
Base, CA, before going to the 11-month Naval
Test Pilot School at Patuxent River Naval Air
Station, MD. Graduates of that course incur a 4-
year service obligation, 3 years of which will be
spent as developmental test pilots at Edwards
AFB, Ft. Rucker, AL, or Ft. Eustis, VA.
Members of the selection board were Colonels
Lewis J. McConnell and William B. Woodson;
Majors Thomas E. Burch, Kenneth P. Roland,
Gary T. Steimle and Michael K. Jennings; and
CW4 Velter H. King. (MILPERCEN PAO)
FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Repairing Saves Money. A study at the NeVv
Cumberland Army Depot has determined that
many previously discarded CH-47 Chinook heli-
copter vertical shaft assemblies can be repaired.
Maintenance personnel modified an existing
shot peening machine in order to remove the
pitting and corrosion of a worn assembly's spline
without exceeding the required tolerances.
The repair cost for an assembly is $5,552; the
cost of a new one is $70,000. (NCAD PAO)
FROM CALIFORNIA
Aviators are Straight Shooters. The FORSCOM
Commander's Company-Level Markmanship Cup
has been won by D Company, 7th Combat Aviation
34
Battalion, Ft. Ord. Members of that attack heli-
copter company outshot 104 other teams, includ-
ing many from infantry units. (FT. ORO PAO)
FROM ST. LOUIS
AAAA Awards. Further plaudits came to the
United States' World Champion HelicopterTeam
and Pilot at the Army Aviation Association of
America's 25th convention this month in St. Louis.
The Outstanding Aviation Unit Award was ac-
cepted by Major Roy E. Mann, coach of the team
which took the world honors in Poland last August.
Recognized as Army Aviator of the Year by
AAAA was CW2 George Chrest, who also won
his world title in Poland.
Other contributors to Army Aviation and the
awards they received were SSG William G. Pat-
terson, 44th Medical Detachment, Ft. Lewis, WA,
Aviation Soldier of the Year; SFC Gerald L.
Johnson, Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory,
Ft. Rucker, AL, James H. McClellan Safety Award;
717th Medical Detachment, New Mexico Army
National Guard, Sante Fe, NM, Outstanding
Reserve Component Aviation Unit Award; Mr.
Michael J. Hoffman, aerospace engineer, Army
Troop Support and Aviation Materiel Readiness
Command, St. Louis, Army Civilian of the Year;
and the Applied Technology Laboratory, Ft. Eustis,
VA, a special unit award for 25 years' service to
Army Aviation. (Lindberg Chapter, AAAA)
FROM FT. HUACHUCA
ACC Stabilized Tours. Under the new AR 614-
5, which became effective in March, several
position stabilized tours for communicators and
air traffic controllers are reduced from 36 to 24
months.
Since the revised regulation has no "grandfather
clause," personnel assigned to Army radar ap-
proach control facilities and to an alternate national
military command center will become available
for worldwide reassignment as soon as they have
served 2 years at their present assignment.
The changes will not affect personnel on
stabilized tours at headquarters, Army Communi-
cations Command or at major subordinate USACC
elements. (Sokalski, USACC PAO)
VIEWS FROM READERS
Editor:
I would like to get copies of your
Recognition Quiz sections from past
issues of A viation Digest. I find material
such as that useful in teaching vehicle
and aircraft identification which 1 have
found is a weak area in my unit.
I would like to commend you on
your article on the "Threat - More Than
Vehicle 10." This brought out an im-
portant point which is often overlooked.
Keep up the good work.
Editor:
1 L T James L. DiSimoni
S2, 1/41 Inf
Ft. Hood, TX
I have read the December 1981 issue
and was dismayed to read of the deval-
uation of the Master Army Aviator Badge.
(Views From Readers, page 30.)
1 suppose if 1 had entered the program
in recent years I would be more sympa-
thetic with the proposed change which
will apparently eliminate the requirement
to have 3,000 flight hours. It appears
improbable that many new aviators will
be able to amass 3,000 hours during
their career with the current cutbacks
in flying hours. However, I, along with
dozens of others, paid my dues based on
the original ground rules of 15 years,
3,000 hours, special ticket and 50 hours
AI. Whoever established the original
criteria must have had something "spe-
APRIL 1982
cial" in mind when he attempted to
distinguish the MASTER ARMY A VI -
ATOR.
You who are so dead-set on changing
things ought to change the design of
the badge to accommodate the new
criteria rather than devalue the badge
for those who met the original intent
and standard. I agree with CW3 Dennis
E. Dura wholeheartedly in his quest to
retain the original criteria. (I know the
50 hours AI was eliminated by DA. )
A Master Army Aviator of the "old
school ," LTC Bob Burris, USA-Ret.,
once described the Master wings in
jest. "The wing means I fly airplanes,
the star means I fly generals, and the
wreath means I killed one:' Everyone
knows how Bob Burris got his Master
Aviator Badge, and what the badge
means to us.
Editor:
LTC S.D. Hoyem
2111 Valencia Ave
Monroe, LA
Request you send one copy of each
reprint of all three articles on NBC
subjects. The articles were originally
published in the August , October and
December (1981) issues of u.s. Army
Aviation Digest.
CPT F.L. Germano Jr.
Headquarters, 3d Ordnance Battalion
APO New York
Editor:
I read your NBC article in the
December '81 issue of the A vialion
Digest, which referred to two previous
NBC articles. I would appreciate your
sending me copies of the NBC articles
that appeared in the August '81 and
October '81 issues.
CW2 William Wightman
New York Army National Guard
Editor:
Please send a copy of "Nuclear,
Biological, Chemical- Training and
Development" and a copy of "Nuclear,
Biological, Chemical Decontamination
Problems. "
Editor:
LTC Joseph F. Kasper
U.S. Army Air Defense School
Ft. Bliss, TX
Could you please send me MAJ W.P.
Patterson's 1980 (November) OPFOR
training program article. Apparently
copies of other threat articles can be
obtained from you folks and I'd appreci-
ate them as well.
I've just been named Threat Officer
in a separate National Guard A TK HEL
Company.
lLT Timothy A. Tealey
WIARNG
Madison, WI
35
VIEWS FROM READERS
Editor:
As the commander of the 275th
Chemical Detachment (JA) , I recently
read the excellent article in the Decem-
ber 1981 A viation Digest titled, "Chem-
ical Agents, First Aid and Long-Term
Effects." However, there was a gross
error made by Captain Savage concern-
ing the first aid for nerve agents.
The following is the correct treatment
concept for a nerve agent casualty:
a. Reference , TRADOC Message
ATTG-OCS, DTG 222000Z June 81,
subject: Treatment Concept for Nerve
Agent Casualty. Reference, FORSCOM
Message, 301635Z September 81 , sub-
ject: Treatment Concept for Nerve Agent
Casualty.
b. Approved first aid doctrine:
(1) Self Aid - Upon onset of one
or more nerve agent symptoms, im-
mediately inject yourself with one
atropine autoinjector in the fleshy
portion of the thigh. After 10 to 15
minutes, if symptoms persist or get worse,
inject yourself with a second atropine
injector. If still no improvement after
10 to 15 more minutes, inject yourself
with a third injector. After use , stick
needle of the expended autoinject or
through the flap in your overgarment
or shirt. Seek medical attention. If,
after the first or second injection ,
your heart beats very rapidly and your
mouth becomes very dry (symptoms of
stropinization), you have injected enough
atropine and should not use the remain-
ing injectors.
(2) Buddy Aid - Upon finding an
individual exhibiting nerve agent symp-
toms and unable to help himsel f/ her-
self, immediately mask and inject the
soldier with all three atropine auto-
injectors at once. (Use the casualty's,
not yours.) Stick needle of expended
autoinjectors in the soldier's pocket flap
and seek immediate medical help. If
soldier stops breathing, apply artificial
respiration.
(3) The need for more than three
injections of atropine is determined only
by medical support personnel.
c. Remaining instructions for medical
treatment vice self aid/ buddy aid will
continue to be lAW paragraph 2-11(a)(6)
of TM 8-285/ NA VMED P-5041/ AFM
160-12(J ).
In addition to correcting the first aid
for nerve agents, please send the previous
two articles, "Nuclear, Biological, Chem-
ical- Training and Development," Au-
gust 1981, and "Nuclear, Biological,
Chemical Decontamination Problems,"
October 1981.
CPT C.A. Gillette
275th Chemical Detachment (JA)
Fort Polk, LA
Captain Gillette is correct. Anyone
using the article, "Chemical Agents,
First Aid and Long-Term Effects," that
appeared in the December 1981 issue
should place the information contained
in Captain Gillette's letter with that
article.
Editor:
I have just finished reading the Decem-
ber 81 issue of A viation Digest and
noticed in the "Views From Readers"
section a matter of interest to me.
Please send me parts 1 through 4 of
the article "From Balloon to Black Hawk,
The Army Forward Aeromedical Evac-
uation Story ," by Lieutenant Colonel
David M. Lam, M.D.
V. Sterlene Hapner
63d Med. Det. (RA)
APO New York
Editor:
I am writing to request reprints of the
series of (four) articles printed in the
A viation Digest concerning the issue
of attrition (aviation warrant officer
retention). Thank you for your assistance.
Editor:
Kathryn Brooks
Research Associate
HQ, USAREUR & 7th Army
ODCSPER (ARI)
APO New York
I just finished reading a recent issue
of Aviation Digest. The articles were
excellent but there were a couple of
pictures that upset me. One of these
shows an NCO getting ready to hook
up a sling load. No problem there, but
he has on a wristwatch and a wedding
band. The other picture shows an EM
working on a UH-l engine, but he has
on a ring and bracelet. Both of these
are definite no-nos. The way that safety
is stressed in the Army Reserve (at least
in my unit) , you would show safety-
minded photographs. Personnel who
wear jewelry while working around
aircraft are just asking for big trouble.
Thank you and please continue such
good articles.
Sergeant Michael Torsiello
315th Engr Gp (USAR)
UH-l Crewchief
Hagerstown, MD
We agree with you fuUy and regret
that they slipped through and were
printed. But the fact of the matter is
this is real- these practices are going
on. We hope the poster on the next
page wiU be taken seriously in an effort
to prevent accidents, injuries and the
loss of lives or aircraft.
Articles from the A vletlon Digest requested in these letters have been mailed. Readers can obtain copies of material
printed in any issue by writing to: Editor, U.S. Army Aviation Digest, P.O. Drawer P, Ft. Rucker, AL 36362
36 U.S. ARMY AVIATION DIGEST
r,ror?
We are, for having let the photos on this page slip
through into print in a previous issue. But, stop and
think about the real danger here. These photos
reflect what's going on in at least one unit. And,
judging by the number of photos we reject for safety
reasons, the problem is pretty widespread. We
recommend that you use this page as a safety poster.
Heliborne
Electronic
Warfare
System
( EWS)
Colonel Robert S. Fairweather Jr.
TRADOC System Manager, Scout Helicopter
Fort Rucker, AL
O
THER MILITARY services use many tactical
techniques which can effectively be employed
by Army Aviation. In this article, I will discuss
an adaptation of the U.S. Air Force's "Wild Weasel"
concept to greatly enhance the survivability of attack
helicopter teams and to generally degrade enemy
capabilities.
I am sure that many readers have at least a general
idea of how the "Wild Weasel" is employed in combat,
so I will not spend much time dwelling on that. In
simple terms, the "Wild Weasel" is a high performance
fighter type aircraft loaded with sophisticated passive
and active electronic warfare equipment. It can be
used to suppress or destroy enemy air defense missile
and tracking systems so that they are ineffective against
our airplanes. In most cases, the "Wild Weasel" would
be employed to support air operations, especially
those directed toward offensive count erair targets.
The idea of an Army Aviation "Wild Weasel" that
has different but related missions has been toyed with
over the years, but not really ever followed up. None-
theless, it is an idea that has a lot of merit and bears
serious consideration. In the first portion of this article,
I posit a conceptual Army "Wild Weasel" that, for the
lack of a better name, I will call the Heliborne Electronic
Warfare System (HEWS). I then propose how we
should use such a system.
A quick review of helicopters availabl e in the
Army inventory shows that the UH-l Huey airframe
is the most likely platform for HEWS. Scout airframes
are too small, attack helicopters are too valuable as
firepower platforms, and of the remaining helicopters,
only UH-ls are available in sufficient ' quantities to
divert a number of them away from their normal
38
roles. It should be noted at this point that the UH-l
was the original platform for the Quick Fix Communica-
tions Jammer/ OF system. However, the Quick Fix
system was moved to the UH-60 Black Hawk because
of its weight and power demands. The suitability of
the UH-l for HEWS will depend on the successful
reduction of weight and power demands through new
technology and may require some modification to the
helicopter power train.
The real heart of HEWS would be the mission
equipment package placed on the helicopter. This
mission equipment package would consist of warning/
acquisition, jamming/ deception, directed energy, com-
munications and aircraft/ aircrew protection subpack-
ages. The primary items in the warning/ acquisition
subpackage would be an interferometer to provide
radar warning and to locate radar emitters, directed
energy warning receivers, an optical detector, possibly
an acoustical detector/ locator and any other appropri-
ate warning/ acquisition devices.
Sufficient jamming/ deception devices would be
placed 011 the UH-l to jam radars, infrared detectors/
seekers, and a wide range of communications while
also providing the capability to spoof or decoy enemy
acquisition systems. High energy jammers would be
particularly desirable. The directed energy subpackage
would further extend capabilities by enabling the
operator to degrade the enemy's visual acquisition of
targets. What I have in mind here are directed energy
systems that cover a relatively broad area with
reasonably low power demands. The main objectives
would be to blind enemy troops, to deny the use of
optical systems and to degrade visibility by "fogging"
viewing ports, windows and canopies.
The communications subpackage would include
radios/ secure devices that are protected from electro-
magnetic pulse (EMP) and jamming and an automatic
target handoff system that would link with similar
systems on other helicopters. An accurate onboard
navigation system would enhance the effectiveness of
the target handoff system, of course.
The aircraft/ aircrew protection su bpackage is
essential to assure survival and mission effectiveness
of HEWS. Nuclear and nonnuclear EMP protection
is a must. Further, "stealth" technology should be
applied where possible to reduce the aircraft's signature
to the minimum. Obviously, the HEWS should be
protected against any of the systems that it carries
since these also could be developed by the enemy.
Given the above operational capabilities for the
HEWS, how would it be best employed? Stealing
from the Artillery, I would visualize it providing both
general and direct support to attack helicopter and
air cavalry units. Assuming the Division 86 force
structure, a HEWS company of 4 to 6 helicopters
would be assigned to the combat support aviation
battalion. The HEWS helicopters would then be placed
in general support of the aviation brigade, located to
APRIL 1982
provide balanced coverage of the forward line of own
troops (FLOT) or would be placed in direct support
of specific attack helicopter battalions and/ or the air
cavalry squadron.
When in the general support role, the HEWS
helicopters would respond to threats as determined
by the brigade battle tactical operations center. This
role would be particularly appropriate when the brigade
attempts an over-the-FLOT operation, operates a's a
covering force or moves to contact. If employed in
direct support of an attack helicopter or air cavalry
unit, the HEWS helicopters would work directly with
aeroscout team leaders and direct their efforts toward
augmenting the team's combat capabilities. SpecificaUy,
the HEWS helicopter would use its systems to suppress
the enemy's ability to acquire and attack targets,
disrupt enemy command and control, and inflict
damage on enemy personnel and equipment with
directed energy. To assure its own survivability, the
HEWS helicopter would operate at maximum standoff
(well behind the team it is supporting) and would use
nap-of-the-earth flight techniques.
Since HEWS is only a concept at this time, I will
not attempt to go into further detail. However, I am
convinced that the basic idea is sound and is techno-
logically feasible. The advantages, from a tactical
standpoint, are obvious and could result in a significant
increase in the overall effectiveness of our attack
helicopter and air cavalry units,
39
40
Mr Wilburn A. James
Directorate of Evaluation/Standardization
Fort Rucker, AL
This art icle reflects the views of the author and not necessarily
t hose of the Department of the Army or any of its agencies
fixed
fatalities were \JCU .... .,OI;.U
The statistics
APRil 982
ANY INGREDIENTS are brought to-
gether to make up that intangible called
safety. Training safely to produce unit
combat proficiency is the ultimate goal of the Army
Aviation Program in Maine. Changes in operational
aircraft and doctrine have caused revisions in training
programs. Through changes from CH-34s and OH-
23s to UH-l Hs and OH-S8s and initial aircraft quali-
fication to terrain flight, the most important elements
of Maine's accident prevention program have been
people, supervision and training.
A National Guard unit has the personnel problems
of an active component unit. In addition, there are
disruptions to unit operations caused by civilian jobs,
distance from home to unit training sites and many
other factors. Maine is fortunate that the majority of
its unit members are true "Maineiacs." A Maineiac is
traditionally a cautious, conservative, reliable person.
This Maineiac tradition has played an integral part in
10 years of accident-free flying. Cautious, conservative,
reliable individuals will perform preflights or mainte-
nance tasks by the book; they will complete a perfor-
42
Major Michael T. McCourt
State Aviation Safety Officer
Maine Army National Guard
mance planning card; and they will make in-flight
decisions ensuring the odds are in their favor. In short,
the accident prevention effort in Maine has been people
oriented. Train guardsmen safely, and they will perform
safely.
In the course of routine operations, the command
structure has many avenues available to influence
accident prevention. From the Deputy Adjutant
General, who is president of the State Aviation Safety
Council, to the instructor pilots who administer the
standardization flights, each supervisor in the chain
has accepted a responsibility to make safety the primary
consideration.
Each supervisor in the chain of command can
influence the sequence of events leading to an accident.
Maine has had Class E mishaps that would have been
Class B or A mishaps if someone in the chain had not
interrupted the sequence of events leading to the
mishap. True, some may attribute this to divine
intervention, or luck, but in most cases it takes a
supervisor who knows the signs of an impending mishap
and takes effective corrective action.
Dismissal
APRIL 1982
while the "birds" stand
by
43
us. Army Communications Command
ATe ACTION LINE
The Third Ingredient
Mr. Ken Arnold
u.s. Army Air Traffic Control Activity
Aeronautical Services Office
Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA
U NFORTUNA TEL Y oral radio communications are the
weakest link in the air traffic control (ATC) system. The mis-
understanding of A TC clearance messages leads to more
midair conflicts than any other system operational factor
reported to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). The
"Whaddesay'!" syndrome is probably the most frequently
noted cause for clearance message and automatic terminal
information service (A TIS) monitoring errors. Why is it the
message always comes just as you were busy doing something
else?
That's another story. Let's assume there is no communication
problem. You heard the message. The situation now depends
on what you do with the information.
Your eyes may be 20-20 or better and your ears may be IS-
IS or better. But , we need to add one more component (the
third ingredient ) at the 100 percent level to make the people,
part of the interface between people and machines, work
successfully in aviation. That component is the brain! It
takes total concentration on the ear, eye, hand coordination
effort to overcome the complacency and carelessness which
have a way of creeping into the cockpit and air traffic
control facility.
Reading the altimeter is one area where pilots sometimes
do not use that one vital component we mentioned earlier.
Altimeter setting/ reading errors happen often enough to
cause NASA to devote half of a quarterly report to the
problem. The following examples were excerpted from the
ASRS Quarterly Report No. 12 and are statements of profes-
sional pilots with years of experience.
1. "While climbing to cleared altitude FL240, ABC Center
called and requested the altitude. I responded 12,000 climbing.
Center asked altitude confirmation. I again responded 12,800
climbing. Center said altitude readout was 22,800 feet. Upon
rechecking I found I had misread the altimeter by 10,000
feet. This was a first time for me, but I have seen it done
before on four occasions in 23 years. Obviously, once is
enough under the right circumstances."
2. "We had been cleared to 27,000 feet direct to ABC.
We then received another clearance to 13,000 feet. The
copilot was flying the aircraft and I was working the radio.
We leveled off at 23,000 feet thinking we were at 13,000 feet.
Scattered clouds and haze obscured ground visibility. Center
then cleared us to cross ABC VORTAC at 6,000 feet. At
20,000 feet I reported passing through 10,000. The copilot
completed the descent to 16,000 feet and I reported 6,000
feet. Center changed us over to Approach Control and I
contacted Approach when level at 6,000. The Approach
controller then said that Center had had a problem with our
altitude transponder readout and that he showed us at 16,000
feet on his altitude readout. We checked our altitude,
immediately realized we had been misreading our altimeter
and descended immediately to 6,000 VFR."
3. "1 was assigned 9,000 feet. My copilot was flying the
aircraft. At 8,000 I called out one thousand to go and he
acknowledged. Approximately 15 minutes later, Center asked
for altitude verification which turned out to be 8,000, not
9,000 feet as assigned. Why did we level off at 8,000 considering
the above conditions'! Why did we both miss the error'!"
4. "This incident involved climbing to and leveling off at
an altitude 1,000 feet high due to both pilot and copilot
setting the wrong barometric pressure prior to departure.
Apparently the altimeters had previously been set near 28.80
because only a small adjustment was required to set 28.84.
Upon starting the engines the A TIS was used to obtain the
altimeter setting of 29.84. Both 0/ us stated 29.84 and set
them at 28.84. ATC questioned us when we reached level-off
and said our Mode-C was inoperative. A cross-check on the
radar altimeter quickly revealed our error. "
Each of the above incidents attests to the potential gravity
of misreading/ missetting altimeters. Incident number two
also reflects a certain laxity on the part of the Center in that
it assumed an inoperative altitude transponder and failed to
question the pilot. It wasn't until the approach controller
questioned the altitude that the extremely dangerous sit uation
was discovered. This shows that controllers, too, sometimes
fail to engage the brain in the coordination effort.
Readers are encouraged to address matters concerning air traffic control to:
Director, USAATCA Aeronautical Services Office, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA 22314
* U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTI NG OFFICE- 1982 - 546-037/ 1
44
0900-1800
(9am-6pm)
0900-1700
(9am-5pm)
1000-1700
(10am-5pm)
1400-2100
(2-9pm)
0800-1800
(8am-6pm)
0800-1000
(8-10am)
0900-1700
(9am-5pm)
0900-1700
(9am-5pm)
0900-1700
(9am-5pm)
0900-1700
(9am-5pm)
40th Birthday of ARMY AVIATION
and FORT RUCKER
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
THURSDAY 3 JUNE 82
Information Center
Building 9204
Museum Open House
Building 6007
Golf Tournament
Golf Course
Carnival/Bazaar
Old Division Parade Field
FRIDAY 4 JUNE 82
Information Center
Building 9204
Golden Hawk 10K Run
Physical Fitness Center, Building 4605
Museum Open House
Building 6007
Synthetic Flight Trainer Open House
Building 4901
Safety Center Open House
Building 4905
Aeromedical Research
Laboratory Display
Building 6901
0900-1700 Museum Open House
(9am-5pm) Building 6007
0930-1100 Army Aviation Air Display- Yesterday
(9:30-11 am) and Today
Cairns Army Airfield
1000-2100 Carnival/Bazaar
(10am-9pm) Old Division Parade Field
1200-1700 Synthetic Flight Trainer Open House
(Noon-5pm) Building 4905
1200-1700 Safety Center Open House
(Noon-5pm) Building 4905
1200-1700 Aeromedical Research Laboratory
(Noon-5pm) Display
Building 6901
1330-1430 New Army Aviation Museum Site
(1 :30-2:30pm) Dedication
1500-1600
(3-4pm)
Corner of Headquarters Road and
Andrews Avenue (Near Build ing 6022)
Memorialization of Warrant Officer
Career College
Building 5301
1830-2400 Army Aviation Ball
(6:30-Midnight)Officers' Club, Building 113
0800-1300
(8am-1 pm)
SUNDAY 6 JUNE 82
No-Host Brunch
1530-1600
(3:30-4pm)
1615-1700
(4:15-5pm)
0800-1800
(8am-6pm)
0800-1200
(8am-Noon)
0900-0930
(9-9:30am)
JRROTC - Drill Team
Post Parade Field
Brigade Review With Retreat
Post Parade Field (Inclement Weather-
Physical Fitness Center, Building 4605)
SATURDAY 5 JUNE 82
Information Center
Building 9204
Static Display
Band Concert
0900-1000
(9-10am)
Officers' Club, Building 113
Memorial Service
Post Parade Field (Inclement Weather-
Post Theater)
For more information contact:
Commander
1 st Aviation Brigade
ATTN: Planning Committee
Fort Rucker, AL 36362
Telephone: AV 558-2141 / 3413
COMM 205-255-2141 / 3413
I
Editor:
I notice in your December 1981
issue of A viation Digest that your
back cover is given over to
aviators leaving the service with
/ point of contact for U.S. Army
Reserve aviation units.
My division, not unlike other
Army National Guard divisions
and nondivisional units, also has
aviation units; and we under the
Total Army Concept could benefit
from the sa me service you
provided the USAR.
Units in the 42d Infantry
(Rainbow) Division are located in:
NEW YORK
Freeport (516) 378-0187
42d Avn Bn (Cmbt) (Div)
Latham (518) 457-7098
Co D, 42d Avn Bn (Atk Hel)
Niagara Falls (716) 297-0180
Co B, 42d Avn Bn (Cmbt Spt) (Div)
KENTUCKY
Frankfort (502) 564-8434
Co C, 42d Avn Bn (Cmbt Spt) (Div)
S U T ~ CAROLINA
Eastover (803) 748-4328
Co D, 1-101 st Cav (Air Cav) (Div)
MG Joseph A. Healey
Commander, 42d Inf Div
NYARNG
125 West 14th St.
New York, NY 10011
The Aviation Digest is happy to publish
the listing of aviation units in the 42d
Infantry (Rainbow) Division. Others
(National Guard or Reserve) are invited
to send us listings of their units which
contain Army Aviation. Please give
mailing addresses to include zip codes
and telephone numbers, both AUTO-
VON and Commercial. If we have not
used them, we will be happy to do so in
future issues.

Army Aviation Digest - Apr 1982

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Army Aviation Digest - Apr 1982

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

APRIL 1982 VOLUME 28 NUMBER4

S-ar putea să vă placă și